Ven. Buddhaghosa no betrayer

By Geewananda Gunawardana, Ph.D.

The premise that Ven. Buddhaghosa is responsible for the present status of Buddhism in Sri Lanka (Arahath Mahinda’s mission and betrayal by Ven. Buddhagosa, The Island 06/06/23) is yet another myth. It is true that the current practices have deviated from the teachings of the Buddha, but this transformative process has been in progress for thousands of years under the influence of multitude of factors. The simplest argument against the said premise is that similar transformations have occurred in other places that were outside of Ven. Buddhaghosa’s influence. To understand this transformative process, it is necessary to investigate both the origin of Buddhism in India and its subsequent spread and development in each country in its own ways.

The Buddha rediscovered a set of truths referred to as the Dhamma. The Pali stanza that Buddhists use to venerate the Dhamma clearly explains the nature of these truths thusly: ‘The Dhamma taught by the Blessed One is consistent and teach the same truth, self-evident and can be understood in this life itself, and cannot be changed nor can they be altered over time. Buddha’s Dhamma is to be investigated and can only be understood by oneself. Dhamma is for the wise to understand and realize.’

The Pali term dhamma means many things, but here it refers to What the Buddha Taught, the Buddha Word (vachana), or the Teaching. If the Teaching cannot change, as the stanza states, what keeps changing? In addition to the Teaching, Buddha introduced a system to institutionalise or disseminate his Teaching; in the Pali tradition it is called the sasana. Teaching explains the way Buddha related to reality based on empirical evidence. The objective for his followers is to explore the natural laws or the nature of the universe and the humans’ place in it and “see things as they really are”. The sasana or the system he put in place has three components: 1) knowing the principles (pariyatti), 2) experiencing (patipatti) and 3) realising the truth (pativeda). In simpler terms, this is akin to information turning to knowledge and knowledge turning to wisdom. While dhamma does not change, the sasana or the three aspects can change. Buddha himself predicted that the sasana will change and, at some point, will disappear.

To appreciate this natural process, it is important to understand the way an intellectual and ethical movement started by the Buddha transformed itself into a religion over the millennia. There were many religious movements in India during Buddha’s time, but he was respectful and tolerant of other religions (e.g., Upali Sutta). Instead of rejecting some existing religious concepts, Buddha interpreted them in new ways to fit his Teaching. For example, he gave new meanings to Brahminic concepts such as gods, kamma, and rebirth (Marasinghe 1974, Gombrich 1997). As evident from the large number of Brahmins who became followers of Buddha, the new interpretations were found complete acceptance. That does not mean Brahminism disappeared, it thrived in India and there is ample evidence that it existed in pre-Buddhist Sri Lanka as well along with several other religions such as Jainism, Saivism, and local cults such as Yaksas and Nagas (W. Rahula 1956). It appears that in Sri Lankan Buddhism, the Buddhist interpretations of earlier religious concepts were overlooked in favor of the original or pre-Buddhist interpretations as they better suited to a new narrative.

How did this new narrative arise? There was a major turning point in the history of Buddhism in Sri Lanka that was fundamental to the transformation of the Teaching, but it has been mostly overlooked by scholars. The devastating events of the 1st century BC – famine, internal revolt, and invasions that nearly wiped out the sasana, compelled the Sri Lankan bhikkhus to commit the Tipitaka into writing. After the country returned to normalcy, the surviving few bhikkhus had raised the question: what should be the purpose of the sangha? Is it to practice (patipatti) or to learn (pariyatti) the Teaching? Having experienced the threat that caused near extinction of the Teaching, the sangha had decided that it was learning that is paramount in perpetuating the Teaching. This decision, it appears, resulted in the segregation of monks into two vocations that had not been described in the Pali Canon before: the village dwellers termed grantha-dhura and the forest dwellers termed vipassana-dhura (W. Rahula 1956).

Initially, the grantha-dhura monks were required to learn and teach the Tripitaka ensuring the perpetuation of the Teaching. At a time when writing was not widespread, the primary goal was to memorize the texts and pass it on to the next generation. Gaining a deeper understanding of the Teaching as required for liberation became less important. This attitude towards preservation persists even today: in many temples, copies of the Tipitaka and other texts are kept under lock and key to be used at an unknown future time, and memorizing Pali stanzas without paying much attention to their meanings is standard practice. Over time, the grantha-dhura monks undertook the teaching of other subjects like languages, grammar, history, logic, medicine, and astrology thereby further deviating from the ideals.

Naturally, the grantha-dhura monks contributed more to the society, and rulers and laity alike favoured them and rewarded them over vipassana-dhura monks. This differential treatment contributed to the dominance of the former and the gradual decline and disappearance of the latter. The unfortunate result of this development is that gaining insight into Teaching was mostly neglected and such practices transmitted from the teacher to pupil over centuries were lost. This environment led to the development of a new culture and a narrative in which the Teaching was presented in a different way.

This new trend is captured by Buddhaghosa in his fifth century commentary on Anguttara Nikaya, Manoratha-purani, where he states that at the end of the first millennium after passing of the Buddha, no disciple will have the capacity to become a stream enterer (sotapanna), the first step of the path to enlightenment (Lopez 2008). The important question is if this was Buddhaghosa’s own invention or was it the norm at the time. As patipatti was given up, expecting pativeda was not a realistic goal. Therefore, it is likely that Buddhaghosa was reporting the prevailing view. Based on examination of life and works of Buddhaghosa the renowned Pali scholar C.A.F. Rhys Davids writes that Buddhaghosa was a meticulous translator who did not inject himself into his work, further supporting this possibility (Law 1923).

A biographer of Buddhaghosa (Law 1923) translates a passage from Mahawamsa describing the reason for sending Buddhaghosa to Sri Lanka by his teacher Ven. Revata: “The text alone (of Pitakattaya) has been preserved in this land (India); the Attakatha are not extant here; nor is there any version to be found the vada (schisms) complete. The Sinhala Atthakatha are genuine. They were composed in the Sinhalese language by the inspired and profoundly wise Mahindo, who had previously consulted discourses of the Buddha, at the three conventions…” Buddhaghosa refers to “Poranas” in his commentaries, but as their Sinhala versions do not exists, scholars are unable to confirm their origins. Again, the question is if these controversial views expressed by Buddhaghosa, particularly those relating to meditation, are his own interpretations or did he merely translate the existing texts? Scholars reason that Buddhaghosa’s Visuddhimagga is a revised from of Vimuttimagga, a treatise by a 1st century Sri Lankan bhikkhu named Upatissa, based on the similarities of the two (Nagai 1917).

As Rhys Davids suggested, it appears that Buddhaghosa did not invent things, he compiled his theses based on existing information.

There is another contributing factor that goes further back in history. The focus of the Theravada tradition is the monastic life. However, Buddha has given equal attention to guiding his lay followers to lead prosperous lives and achieve wisdom and inner peace. However, references to this guidance are few and far between in the Pali Canon. It is possible that the transmitters of the message being monastics themselves, had little or no interest in the affairs of laity (B. Rahula 2008). With the option for liberation in this life removed, and the paucity of guidance to laity, the grantha-dhura bhikkhus were compelled to come up with other ways to keep the laity engaged.

As the vipassana-dhura monks distanced from the society and eventually disappeared over time, a consensus has emerged among both monks and the laity that comprehending the Teaching is not possible in this life and it can be done only when the next Buddha Mettteya (Sanskrit Maitreya) appears. This was most likely inspired by Mahayana tradition. There is evidence that Mahayana influence was present in Sri Lanka as early as the 3rd century. In interviews conducted in late twentieth century, the chief prelates of all chapters have declared that it is not possible to reach the ideals of Teaching in this life in complete contradiction of the verse they recite daily to venerate the Teaching (Bond 1988; Southwold 1983; Gombrich 1988). Metteyya is mentioned in the Pali canon only once. According to Pali scholars, the Chakkavatti-Sihanada sutta (DN 26), in which the reference appears, is likely a later addition. On the other hand, post 5th century Sanskrit literature of the Mahayana school carries frequent references to Maitreya. In late 19th century, when Olcott and Blavatsky were spearheading the revival of Buddhism, they incorporated this concept to their Theosophy (Gombrich 1988).

The new narrative presented was to perform meritorious deeds (punna kamma) and collect merits to ensure rebirth in superior realms and wait for Metteya Buddha’s time to attain nibbana. Most of the meritorious activities prescribed were about supporting the sangha, places of worship, and performing elaborate rituals to venerate the Buddha and sacred objects. This served two purposes: maintaining the sangha and the sacred sites while giving an opportunity for the lay followers to safeguard the afterlife. However, the punna kamma as performed under this premise differs from the practice of dana prescribed in the Eight-fold Path as they are done in expectation of something in return. This also opened the door for pre-Buddhist practices such as offering material things and praying to gods, demons, and other spirits in return of favors or protection from ills to be incorporated into the religious life.

It is worthwhile noting that the dictionary defines religion as the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods. Therefore, the late nineteenth century Western scholars were correct when they coined the term Buddhism to describe the practices they witnessed. By this time, the Teaching, which has an empirical foundation, had been replaced with a belief system involving rituals associated with gods, deities, and sacred objects. The emphasis had shifted to the next life instead of the present life. Cultural rituals and ceremonies have existed during Mahinda’s time, but they were performed for veneration or celebration, but not for salvific purposes as today. As a result, the intellectual and ethical movement that Buddha started had transformed into a religion.

These transformative events keep adding even today. The development of a new ritual known as the Bodhi Puja started around 1976. While the practice of veneration of trees goes back to Buddha’s time, it was not done for salvific purposes. The new Bodhi Puja are perhaps modeled after the Christian services. Bodhi Puja is a very popular practice and is performed to seek help in various situations of life changing from getting through an exam, to getting a job, or to recovering from an illness. This practice is now so widespread that some North American temples conduct Bodhi Puja using potted Bo tree saplings kept indoors.

All is not lost; the Teaching is secure and more accessible to a wider audience than ever. From hindsight, it can be said that the Sri Lankan bhikkhus in the 1st century BC did the right thing. There is only one thing to do to get back on the path: follow the Buddha’s advice to Kalamas. Young generations must be taught not to believe things just because they are in the Pali Canon, or were told by elders, or are in the textbooks prescribed for examinations. They must be taught how to differentiate Teaching from commentaries and literature. Commentators have the liberty to express their views, but, as Buddha advised, we need not take their word without verification.

Scholars, linguists, historians, and archeologists etc., have added new tools to do so. It must be shown that every word in the Pali stanza used to venerate the Teaching is true. It must be emphasized that Teaching is not a belief system and there is no mystery involved; everything is empirical. Science is beginning to catch up with Teaching, and as a result, there are avenues for technology savvy young generations to better relate to the Teaching (Lopez 2008; Wallace ed. 2003; Paul 2016). Teaching offers many tools to benefit life here and now. It is time to stop the blame game and act: encourage the younger generations to be free thinkers and not give into tradition without inquiry. It is the Buddha’s teaching that we should rely on as it provides the skill set needed for leading a prosperous life here and now (B. Rahula 2008).