Theravada and Pali

Download Theravada and Pali

Post on 16-Apr-2015

26 views

Category:

Documents

1 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

<p> 349378 Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal, no. 20, pp. 349378 (2007) Taipei: Chung-Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies ISSN: 1017-7132</p> <p> 349 </p> <p>The Theravda Tradition and Modern Pli Scholarship:A Case of Lost Manuscripts Mentioned in Old Pli Bibliographical Sources</p> <p>Primoz PecenkoDirector, Center for Buddhist Studes University of Queensland</p> <p>AbstractIn this article I will discuss my research of the Pli subcommentaries (k) on the first four nikyas and show that there exist two sets of such subcommentaries and not just a single set which we have in printed form (Chahasagyana edition). The works of modern Pli scholarship, which in this case agree with the Theravda tradition, also usually mention only one set of the subcommentaries. However, according to some Pli bibliographic sources and catalogues of Pli manuscripts held in various libraries in Burma and Sri Lanka, there seem to exists another set of the subcommentaries on the four nikyas which has been ignored/omitted by the Theravda tradition and also considered either lost or non-existent by modern Pli scholarship. My recent discovery of a Pli manuscript of one of the lost subcommentaries in Burma gives a completely new perspective on the historical development of the two sets of the subcommentaries and, in a wider sense, also on our understanding of the available information about the history of Pli literature. I will attempt to discuss the following important issues which resulted from this discovery: The existence of the lost manuscript proves that the information in some older Pli bibliographic sourceswhere both sets are mentionedis correct and that both the Theravda tradition as well as modern Pli scholarship ignored the lost texts and the bibliographic information about them. Why? The analysis of the available printed editions and catalogued manuscripts also indicates that the information on the subcommentaries given in the works of modern Pali scholarship seems to be influenced by the traditional Theravda scholarship (both mention only one set)although the information on the lost texts was easily available. My discovery of the above mentioned manuscript, which is listed in the oldest</p> <p> 350 </p> <p>Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal, no. 20 (2007)</p> <p>Pli bibliographic text (Saddhammasagaha), also proves that this bibliographic textoften considered less reliable by modern Pli scholarshipseems to be much more reliable than the later bibliographic sources (e.g. Ssanavasa) which have been used as main sources for modern history of Pli literature. Therefore the sources for the available history of Pli literature need to be re-examined in the light of the information given in the older bibliographic texts, catalogues of Pli manuscripts, inscriptions, and the texts whichalthough existing in manuscript formhave not been researched yet. Considering all this, our understanding of the traditional Theravda transmission of Pli texts will have to be re-examined as well. Key words: 1. Theravda Buddhism2. Pli Subcommentaries 3. Pli Bibliographies4. Textual Transmission 5. Pli Manuscripts</p> <p>ContentsPart 1: The Ahakaths and ks on the Four Nikyas Part 2: The ks in Pli Bibliographic Sources 2.1. Saddhammasagaha 2.2. The Pagan inscription 2.3. Gandhavasa 2.4. Ssanavasa 2.5. Ssanavasadpa 2.6. Piakat samui 2.7. Critical Pli Dictionary Part 3: Printed Editions and Manuscripts of the ks Conclusions Abbreviations</p> <p>The Theravda Tradition and Modern Pli Scholarship</p> <p> 351 </p> <p>In this article I will discuss my research of the Pli subcommentaries (k)1 on the first four nikyas and show that there exist two sets of such subcommentaries and not just a single set which we have in printed form (Chahasagyana edition). The works of modern Pli scholarship,2 which in this case agree with the Theravda tradition, also usually mention only one set of the subcommentaries. However, according to some Pli bibliographic sources and catalogues of Pli manuscripts3 held in various libraries in Burma and Sri Lanka, there seem to exists another set of the subcommentaries on the four nikyas which has been ignored/omitted by the Theravda tradition and also considered either lost or non-existent by modern Pli scholarship. My recent discovery of a Pli manuscript of one of the lost subcommentaries in Burma4 gives a completely new perspective on the historical development of the two sets of the subcommentaries and, in a wider sense, also on our understanding of the available information about the history of Pli literature. I will attempt to discuss the following important issues which resulted from this discovery: The existence of the lost manuscript proves that the information in some older Pli bibliographic sourceswhere both sets are mentionedis correct and</p> <p>1</p> <p>For the etymology of the word k see M. Mayrhofer, Etymologisches Wrterbuch des Altindoarischen (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1986) s.v. See also PLC, pp. 19293; K.R. Norman, Pli Literature (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1983), pp. 14851 [from now on: K.R. Norman, PL]; W.B. Bolle, Die Stellung der Vinayaks in der Pli-Literatur, ZDMG, Suppl. 1, 17 (1969), pp. 82435; Oskar von Hinber, A Handbook of Pli Literature (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1996), pp. 100101 [from now on: O.v. Hinber, HPL]. For example, O.v. Hinber, HPL. Bibliographic sources: Saddhammasagaha (Saddhamma-s; edited by Nedimle Saddhnanda, JPTS 1890, pp. 2190 = Ne 1961); Pagan inscription (edition: G. H. Luce and Tin Htway, A 15th Century Inscription and Library at Pagan, Burma in Malalasekera Commemoration Volume [Colombo: The Malalasekera Commemoration Volume Editorial Committee, 1976], pp. 203217); Gandhavasa (Gv; edited by I.P. Minayeff, JPTS, 1886, pp. 5479); Ssanavasa (Ss Ne; edited by C.S. Upasak, Nland: Nava Nland Mahvihra, 1961); Ssanavasadpa (Ss-dip Ce; edited by Vimalasrathera, Colombo: Satthloka Press, 1880); Piakat samui (Pi-sm; edition: Rangoon: Tipiakanikya Ssan Pru Aphvai, 1989); Critical Pli Dictionary (CPD; edited by V. Trenckner et al., Copenhagen: Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, 1924); catalogues: K.D. Smadsa, Lakv puskoa pot nmvaliya, Vols. IIII (Colombo: Department of Cultural Affairs, 195964); Piakat samui3 (Rangoon: Tipiakanikya Ssan Pru Aphvai1, 1989). Pi-sm is both a bibliographic source and a catalogue (see Part 2, 2.6. and Part 3 below). The manuscript is described in detail in Primoz Pecenko, Lnatthapaksin and Sratthamajs: The Puraks and the ks on the Four Nikyas, JPTS 27 (2002), pp. 8285.</p> <p>2 3</p> <p>4</p> <p> 352 </p> <p>Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal, no. 20 (2007)</p> <p>that both the Theravda tradition as well as modern Pli scholarship ignored the lost texts and the bibliographic information about them. Why? The analysis of the available printed editions and catalogued manuscripts also indicates that the information on the subcommentaries given in the works of modern Pali scholarship seems to be influenced by the traditional Theravda scholarship (both mention only one set)although the information on the lost texts was easily available. My discovery of the above mentioned manuscript, which is listed in the oldest Pli bibliographic text (Saddhammasagaha), also proves that this bibliographic textoften considered less reliable by modern Pli scholarshipseems to be much more reliable than the later bibliographic sources (e.g. Ssanavasa) which have been used as main sources for modern history of Pli literature. Therefore the sources for the available history of Pli literature need to be re-examined in the light of the information given in the older bibliographic texts, catalogues of Pli manuscripts, inscriptions, and the texts whichalthough existing in manuscript formhave not been researched yet. Considering all this, our understanding of the traditional Theravda transmission of Pli texts will have to be re-examined as well.</p> <p>Part 1: The Ahakaths and ks on the Four NikyasEach of the four nikyas has a commentary (ahakath) compiled by Buddhaghosa in the fifth century CE in Sri Lanka (see Table 1.1. below), and the four commentaries have two sets of subcommentaries, the older ones (purak), collectively called Lnatthapaksin (see Table 1.2. below), and the later ones (k), collectively called Sratthamajs (see Table 1.3. below).Table 1.1. Commentaries (ahakath) on the four nikyas</p> <p>Pli canon (four nikyas) Dghanikya (DN) Majjhimanikya (MN) Sayuttanikya (SN) Aguttaranikya (AN)</p> <p>First written down 1st cent. BCE in Sri Lanka</p> <p>Commentaries (ahakath) Sumagalavilsin (Sv) Papacasdan (Ps) Sratthapaksin (Spk) Manorathapra (Mp)</p> <p>Compiled 5th cent. CE by Buddhaghosa</p> <p>The Theravda Tradition and Modern Pli Scholarship</p> <p> 353 </p> <p>Table 1.2. The old subcommentaries (purak) on the four nikyas</p> <p>Nikya / Ahakath Dghanikya / Sumagalavilsin Majjhimanikya / Papacasdan Sayuttanikya / Sratthapaksin Aguttaranikya / Manorathapra</p> <p>Old subcommentaries (purak=p)Compiled 6th9th century CE by Dhammapla</p> <p>Sumagalavilsinpurak (Sv-p), Paham Lnatthapaksin [I] Papacasdanpurak (Ps-p), Dutiy Lnatthapaksin [II] Sratthapaksinpurak (Spk-p), Tatiy Lnatthapaksin [III] Manorathaprapurak (Mp-p), Catutth Lnatthapaksin [IV]</p> <p>Table 1.3. The (later) subcommentaries (k) on the four nikyas</p> <p>Nikya / Ahakath Dghanikya / Sumagalavilsin Majjhimanikya / Papacasdan Sayuttanikya / Sratthapaksin Aguttaranikya / Manorathapra</p> <p>(Later) subcommentaries (k = )Compiled 12th century CE by Sriputta</p> <p>Sumagalavilsink (Sv-), Paham Sratthamajs [I] Papacasdank (Ps-), Dutiy Sratthamajs [II] Sratthapaksink (Spk-), Tatiy Sratthamajs [III] Manorathaprak (Mp-), Catutth Sratthamajs [IV]</p> <p>The authorship of the puraks (Lnatthapaksin) is usually ascribed to Dhammapla5 and that of the later ks (Sratthamajs) is ascribed to Sriputta5</p> <p>On the date(s) and works of Dhammapla(s) see O.v. Hinber, HPL, pp. 167170; A.P. Buddhadatta, The Second Great Commentator in Corrections to Geiger Mahvasa etc. (Ambalangoda: Ananda Book Company, 1957), pp. 18997; Bhratya Bauddhcryay (Colombo: K.M. Ratnasiri, 1949), pp. 6368; Theravd Bauddhcryay (Ambalangoda: S.K. Candratilaka, 1960), pp. 5455; H. Dhammaratana Thera, Buddhism in South India, The Wheel Publication No. 124/125 (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1968), pp. 4041; Lily de Silva, Introduction in Sv-p, pp. xlilv; Supaphan Na Bangchang, Introduction in A Critical Edition of the Mlapariyyavagga of Majjhimanikya-ahakathk (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Peradeniya, 1981), pp. xxivxxxix; H. Saddhatissa, Introduction in Ups, pp. 28 foll.; L.S. Cousins, Dhammapla and the k literature [review of Sv-p, ed. by Lily de Silva], Religion 2, pt. 1 (1972): pp. 15965; A. Peiris, The Colophon to the Paramatthamajs and the Discussion on the Date of cariya Dhammapla in Buddhism in Ceylon and Studies on Religious Syncretism in Buddhist Countries, ed. by H. Bechert (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &amp; Ruprecht, 1978), pp. 6177; EncBuddh, vol. 4, fasc. 4, pp. 501504; A.K. Warder, Some Problems of the Later Pali Literature, JPTS 9 (1981), pp. 198207; P. Jackson, A Note on Dhammapla(s), JPTS 15 (1990), pp. 209211.</p> <p> 354 </p> <p>Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal, no. 20 (2007)</p> <p>of Poonnaruva.6 Although according to some catalogues7 of Pli manuscripts held in various libraries in Burma and Sri Lanka, both sets of ks exist in manuscript form, only the ks belonging to the single combined set (see Table 1.4 below) have been published and the remaining ones (see Tables 1.56 below) have not been investigated at all. The two sets of subcommentaries on the first four nikyas are mentioned in Pli bibliographical sources (see p. 1, n. 3 above) in the following three ways: First, as a single set consisting of the first three ks from the old set, called Lnatthapaksin, and the fourth k from the later set, called Sratthamajs:Table 1.4. One combined set of subcommentaries.</p> <p>Pli CanonFour nikyas</p> <p>Commentaries Sumagalavilsin Papacasdan Sratthapaksin Manorathapra</p> <p>Old subcomment.(purak = p)</p> <p>(Later) subcomment.(k = )</p> <p>Dghanikya Majjhimanikya Sayuttanikya Aguttaranikya</p> <p>Lnatthapaksin I Lnatthapaksin II Lnatthapaksin III Sratthamajs IV</p> <p>The set in Table 1.4 above was approved and published by the Sixth Council (Chahasagyana).</p> <p>Second, as one complete set of the old ks with an additional later k on Aguttara-nikya:</p> <p>6</p> <p>On Sriputta of Poonnaruva see P. Pecenko, Sriputta and his works, JPTS 23 (1997), pp. 159179; O.v. Hinber, HPL, pp. 172173. Here I mean the following two catalogues: 1) K.D. Smadsa, Lakv puskoa pot nmvaliya, Vols. I-III (Colombo: Department of Cultural Affairs, 195964), and 2) a very important Burmese bibliographic work which also refers to the manuscripts held in the National Library, Rangoon: Piakat samui (Rangoon: Tipiakanikya Ssan Pru Aphvai, 1989). Of course, these two catalogues, although sufficient for the topic of this article, do not list all the Pli manuscripts that have not been investigated yet. Further research of old inscriptions and Pli manuscripts is needed here and some work has already been done, see for example: U Than Tun, An original inscription dated 10 September 1223 that king Badon copied on 27 October 1785, tudes birmanes (Paris: EFEO, 1998), pp. 3755; Anne M. Blackburn, Notes on Sri Lankan temple manuscripts collections, JPTS 27 (2002), pp. 160; Oskar von Hinber, Chips from Buddhist workshops: Scribes and manuscripts from Northern Thailand, JPTS 22 (1996), pp. 3557; Oskar von Hinber, Remarks on list of books sent to Ceylon from Siam in the 18th century, JPTS 12 (1988), pp. 17583.</p> <p>7</p> <p>The Theravda Tradition and Modern Pli Scholarship</p> <p> 355 </p> <p>Table 1.5. A complete set of old subcommentaries with a later subcommentary</p> <p>Pli CanonFour nikyas</p> <p>Commentaries</p> <p>Old subcomment.(purak = p)</p> <p>[Later] subcomment.(k = )</p> <p>Dghanikya Majjhimanikya Sayuttanikya Aguttaranikya</p> <p>Sumagalavilsin Papacasdan Sratthapaksin Manorathapra</p> <p>Lnatthapaksin I Lnatthapaksin II Lnatthapaksin III Lnatthapaksin IV Sratthamajs IV</p> <p>Here Lnatthapaksin IV, the old subcommentary on Aguttaranikya, a manuscript of which was found in 1999 in Burma,8 is added to the Sixth Councils set.</p> <p>Third, as two completely different sets:Table 1.6. The two complete sets of subcommentaries on four nikyas</p> <p>Pli CanonFour nikyas</p> <p>Commentaries</p> <p>Old subcomment.(purak = p)</p> <p>[Later] subcomment.(k = )</p> <p>Dghanikya Majjhimanikya Sayuttanikya</p> <p>Sumagalavilsin Papacasdan Sratthapaksin</p> <p>Lnatthapaksin I Lnatthapaksin II Lnatthapaksin III Lnatthapaksin IV</p> <p>Sratthamajs I Sratthamajs II Sratthamajs III Sratthamajs IV</p> <p>Aguttaranikya Manorathapra</p> <p>Here three later subcommentaries on Dghanikya, Majjhimanikya and Sayuttanikya (Sratthamanjs IIII), which are still in manuscript form, are added and thus we have two complete sets, a very different situation from the single set approved by the Sixth Council (see Table 1.4. above). In the next two sections (Part 2 and Part 3 below) I will analyse in detail the Pli bibliographic sources and catalogues which mention the subcommentaries given in the Tables above.</p> <p>8</p> <p>At present I am working on...</p>