|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Tuesday, 4 May 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
Authenticating ancient history of Sri Lanka Dr. Ananda Guruge speaks of his recent research on the recorded ancient history of Sri Lanka In 1996, at a discussion on Asoka, led by me (Ananda Guruge) in Taipei,
Dr. Lin Chung-An, a Professor of Astrophysics of Taipei Obtaining the reference from him, I checked the Tasisho edition of the Chinese Tripitaka and found that its Section 1462 - Shan-jian-lu-piposha - was presented by the Japanese editors as a translation of Samantapasadika. This is the Vinaya commentary which Buddhaghosa translated from old Sinhela into Pali in the fifth century. I noted with interest that this translation of a Sri Lankan Pali treatise into Chinese could be unique amidst the numerous Sanskrit texts, which had been systematically translated into Chinese over two millennia. Fifth century CE was a period of significant Sino-Sri Lankan relations in the field of Buddhism. The highlights were the visit of Fa-hian, the mission of Sri Lankan nuns led by Devasara to establish the Bhikkhuni Sasana in China, and the translation of the Mahisasaka Vinaya by a Fa-hian into Chinese. I assumed that either Fa-hian or Devasara could have taken the Samantapasadika to China. Recently, I began to revise my Asoka the Righteous: A Definitive Biography for an Indian Edition by Motilal Banarssidas, and rechecked the Chinese sources on Asoka. All Asokan scholars, hitherto, had relied on Jean Przyluskis for Chinese data on this Emperor; but his book was published in 1923. As such, there were no reference to Shan-jian-lu-piposha. I felt that a detailed study of this work was essential to set the record straight with regard to Chinese sources on Asoka. All Chinese sources so far known and utilised presented Asoka as known only from Sanskrit Avadana literature. They were historically dubious and their information hardly tallied with Asoka as known from his own edicts and inscriptions. It was inconceivable that the Chinese could have preserved only a lop-sided version of the greatest patron of Buddhism. With the generous assistance of my colleague Professor Darui Long (Assistant to the Dean of Academic Affairs of Hsi Lai University), a line-by-line comparison of parts of the Samantapasadika and Shan-jian-lu-piposha was undertaken. As we proceeded, one thing became very clear. Shan-jian-lu-piposha is not a direct translation of the Samantapasadika. First, the NAME Piposho or Vipasa as the last part of the Chinese name is pronounced is the Sanskrit designation of a commentary: Vibasha = Atthakatha. The rest of the name can loosely be translated as "elucidation", "critical examination" or "clarification". The element of "comprehensive", conveyed by Samanta is not found in the Chinese name. Lu stands for Vinaya. Shan-jian-lu-piposha means "Vinaya clarifying or elucidating or critically examining commentary". Samantapasadika, apparently, was a name given to the translation by Buddhaghosa, who gave such attention-catching titles to all his translations. The Chronology Shan-jian-lu-piposha is said to be translated by Sanghabhadra who came from Sri Lanka to Canton in Southern China in 488CE. He did the translation in collaboration with a Chinese monk named Sang-I and left for his homeland by ship in 429CE. The translation was completed between 488 and 489CE. Could Sanghabhadra have brought a copy of the Pali Samantapasadika when he took ship to China around 486 or 487CE? To ascertain this, the date of the translation of the Sinhela Vinaya Commentary into Pali by Buddhaghosa needs to be determined. We have no record of the exact date. But according to the Mahavamsa, Buddhaghosa arrived from the neighborhood of the Mahabodhi in Gaya in the reign of Mahanama (406-428). The first years of his stay at the Mahavihara in Anuradhapura were devoted to the production of the Visuddhimagga. Even if the Samantapasadika was the first commentary he translated, it appeared somewhat unlikely that Sanghabhadra, who undoubtedly belonged to the Abhayagiri Fraternity had access to the Pali version. On the other hand, Abhayagiri monastery had its own Sinhela commentaries called the Uttaraviharatthakatha which had been extant even at the time the Mahavamsa Tika or Vamsatthappasini was produced in ninth-tenth century CE. This commentary on the Mahavamsa depended on it for more detailed information on Asoka and his antecedents. So I examined the hypothesis that Sanghabhadra took to China not Buddhaghosa's Samantapasadika but a version of the Uttaraviharatthakatha. To establish this hypothesis, an important piece of evidence came from the two books. Both use many verses. In the Samantapasadika, most of these verses are introduced as quoted from the Dipavamsa, the earliest Sri Lankan chronicle, dated in fourth-fifth century CE. The identical verses in Shan-jian-lu-piposha are introduced as either coming from the past or by some Dharma master (Fa-Shih). The Chinese text has no reference whatsoever to the Dipavamsa, thus indicating clearly that its original was earlier than both the first chronicle and the Samantapasadika. Hence it could have been a version of the Sihala-Atthakatha, which was interspersed with Pali verses - the original source for Pali Commentaries of Buddhaghosa, Dharmapala etc, the Dipavamsa and the Mahavamsa and a major reference work used by the author of Pali Vamsatthappakasini. The structure The Samanta-pasadika begins with a very long introduction called "Bahiranidanavannana", the "description of the external origin", namely the historical background. This is what was called the Sihala-Atthakatha-Mahavamsa. Then each section is on the different offences as described in the Suttavibhanga of the Vinaya Pitaka. The Chinese Shan-jian-lu-piposha, on the other hand, is divided into eighteen chapters. Four such chapters cover the historical background from the demise of the Buddha to the day that the Vinaya was taught by a Sinhela monk at Thuparama in Anuradhapura under the patronage of Thera Mahinda. It is apparent that the text, which Sanghabadra used, was structured differently from the Samantapasadika, unless, of course, the Chinese had the practice of dividing a text into shorter chapters. The content It is in content analysis that the most convincing evidence was found. Both deal with identical information but where they differ, the subject matter and the style are distinct. Shan-jian-lu-piposha presents information on the three Councils succinctly while expanding some conversations and descriptions of situations. Certain accounts of the Samantapasadika (e.g the visits of the Buddha and his predecessors appear in abridged form in the Chinese version. Among them, the most glaring is the episode on the bringing of the Bodhi-tree to which the Pali version devotes as many as ten pages. Shan-jian-lu-piposha deals with this episode only very briefly in four pages. On the other hand, its information on Asoka and his antecedents is more detailed and agree with the version which is specific to the Dipavamsa rather than to the Mahavamsa. One more clue may lie in the Chinese transliteration of proper names. Most names appear to be abridged and suggest an old Sinhela rather than Pali origin. The Prof. Long and I plan to analyze textual divergences in greater detail in due course. What is noted hitherto have, however, convinced me that they could not have arisen simply on account of the use of two different manuscripts of the Pali text by Sanghabhadra. The variations go far beyond Copyist's errors or variant readings. Conclusion The conclusion which I am inclined to draw from what I have presented above is that the Chinese Shan-jian-lu-piposha is perhaps the only available access we have to the now-lost Sihala-Atthakatha. Its historical introduction could be a version of the Sihela-Atthakatha-Mahavamsa of the Uttaraviharatthakatha of the Abhayagiri fraternity. This discovery is of dual significance: To students of Sri Lankan historical tradition, the Chinese Vinaya Commentary offers a version of Sri Lankan history not only older than the Dipavamsa, the Samantapasadika and the Mahavamsa, but was also a primary source of the information selectively used in all these works and the Mahavamsa Commentary of ninth-tenth century. To the Chinese, Shan-jian-lu-piposha is further proof of the close relationship between China and Sri Lanka in the formation of the Buddhist monastic system of Chinese and the formulation of its Vinaya - a collaboration, which began as a result of the initiative of Tao-an and Fa-hian's visit and sojourn in Sri Lanka. It also establishes that China had preserved the Southern tradition of the historical background of Buddhism, including the three Buddhist Councils, the dynastic history of ancient India and Sri Lanka, a more convincing biography of Asoka and a reliable chronological record. To scholars of both countries a new area of research has opened up: Could China have more pointers to the antiquity of Sri Lankan literature awaiting discovery in its vast treasures of Buddhist translations? |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
National
University mentioned that the Chinese Tripitaka published in Japan from
1924 contained a comprehensive history of the introduction of Buddhism to
Sri Lanka. He also said that it dealt with Asoka in detail and listed the
missions sent by Moggaliputta Tissa.
