“Even Buddhaghosa did not really believe that Theravada practice could lead to Nirvana.
His Visuddhimagga is supposed to be a detailed, step by step guide to enlightenment.
And yet in the postscript […] he says he hopes that the merit he has earned by writing the Vishuddhimagga will allow him to be reborn in heaven, abide there until Metteyya (Maitreya) appears, hear his teaching and then attain enlightenment.” Source: The Broken Buddha, by Ven. S. Dhammika
Note To The Reader [I could add these off the top of my head…]
The Sixteen Stages of Insight
1 - Namarupa Pariccheda Nana [differentiating mind and matter…]
2 - Paccaya Pariggaha Nana [realising cause and effect…]
3 - Sammasana Nana [inference of anicca, dukkha and anatta…]
4 - Udayabbaya Nana [arising and cessation. the so called 'corruptions of insight are possibly the ‘7 factors of enlightenment’…]
5 - Bhanga Nana [five aggregates seen in dissolution…]
6 - Bhaya Nana [five aggregates as fearful…]
7 - Adinava Nana [drawbacks…]
8 - Nibbida Nana [revulsion…]
9 - Muncitukamayata Nana [yearning for release…]
10 - Patisankha Nana [reviewing insight thus far…]
11 - Sankharupekha Nana [equanimity from anicca…]
12 - Anuloma Nana
13 - Gotrabhu Nana
14 - Magga Nana [Vimutti or Nibbana… third noble truth]
15 - Phala Nana [stream entry phalasamawatha]
16 - Paccavekkhana Nana [reviewing- knowledge and vision of release…]
Its safe to say there are parallel concepts and the order is also consistent with the EBTs. I wonder if there’s any scholarly work comparing this with EBTs?
Ven. Dhammika is making the common mistake of confusing Buddhaghosa’s colophon with that of the scribal copyist. The former dedicates the the merit of composing the Visuddhimagga to the happiness of all beings. It’s the scribe, not Buddhaghosa, who wants to go to heaven and later meet Metteyya.
Why not both? There’s nothing logically contradictory about believing that the path as laid out in the Visuddhimagga leads to nibbana in this very life, and at the same time, to want to be reborn in the time of Maitreya, to see him for oneself before becoming enlightened.
In any case, the passage that expresses a wish to be reborn with Metteyya has multiple indications that it is a later addition, probably a scribal remark by a copyist.
It is only found in Sinhalese manuscripts
It doesn’t identify Buddhaghosa at all, merely saying “through the merit I have gained by this”.
It appears after the rather elaborate praise of Buddhaghosa, which itself appears to be a later addition (it’s not good form to praise oneself in this way).
It is right at the end, exactly where a copyist’s scribal mark would be added
This belief is implicitly rejected in the text itself (Vism 1.135)
I just found this. I was looking for the sinhala commentaries. This might be it @Mirco
The Atuwa (අටුවා) are the text written in Pali which describes the the deeper areas in Tripitaka in detail. When the Buddhism was brought to Sri Lanka, the local priests stared documenting the deeper analysis of Tripitaka in local language (Hela Basa) which were collectively called Helatuwa (හෙළටුවා). Helatuwa consisit of three Attakatha (අට්ඨකථා). These are Maha Attakathawa (මහා අට්ඨකතාව), Pachchari Attakathawa (පච්චරි අට්ඨකතාව) and Kurundi Attakathawa (කුරුන්දි අට්ඨකථාව).
Now we need someone to translate @sujato maybe Bhante @sarana knows more about this? Lived in Sri lanka
The Kurundī* states: ‘A father is absent. The mother gives her son permission, saying, “Let him go forth.” When asked, “Where has his father gone?” she replies, “I shall be responsible for whatever is due to you from the father.” — It is suitable for him [the son] to be given the going forth.’
But the Kurundī states: ‘if [the country] is far away and the way to it is [across] a great wilderness (or desert), it is suitable to give him the going forth, [thinking], “having gone there [later] we shall obtain leave [of the parents].”’
The link to Sinhala Atthakatha - Suttasangaha was uploaded by me into Archive.org . Glad that you read it, although I am not sure about the copyright for it.
I have brought all of the over 50 books of Sinhala Atuwa to Myanmar and with a team of Burmese gentlemen we scanned it all. (I mean, “all”.) But I am little bit afraid to upload it because, again, I don’t know how far I could have a problem with copyright law.
Anyway, the quote that you are quoting is correct, it is in the Vinaya Commentaries.
Regarding the three commentaries from Sri Lanka - helatuwa (hela = sinhala, atuwa = atthakatha) they are repeatedly quoted in the Pali Commentaries, the Pali translation of the helatuwa by ven. Buddhaghosa and several other monks. (People say that ven. Buddhaghosa is guilty of writing the commentaries, but big NO NO - not only that we know he specifically mentioned whenever he had his own opinion, but quite a number of the Commentary books were translated by entirely different persons.)
Myanmar people believe that basically everything what is in the Commentaries is the teachings of the Arahants who attended the First Buddhist Council. Well, if it makes them happy, then why not? There are of course several serious problems/contradictions/ways-to-have-fun/wisdom-exercises/faith-exercises, but that would require about 10 new posts for each of them.
No way. These are Sinhalese translation from the Pali translation.
So, first the Commentaries were in Pali, let’s say written in India, a few centuries after the Buddha passed away.
Then they were translated into Sinhalese and kept in Sri Lanka. The original Pali was lost.
Then ven. Buddhaghosa came to Sri Lanka to translate the Sinhalese Commentaries back to Pali language. Unfortunately the Sinhalese texts which he used were lost.
The Pali translation of ven. Buddhaghosa and some other monks is available until today. They quote the Sinhala commentaries time and again, so theoretically we could reconstruct them? (Not me, please. )
Then in the 20th century AC the Sri Lankan government supported translation of the ven. Buddhaghosa’s translation into Pali to Sinhalese.
So, what you found is the second Sinhalese translation of the Pali texts. You’d be much more accurate if you used the Pali Commentaries instead.
There might be some confusion because of the title you used. It really ought to have “Suttasangaha Atthakatha, Sinhalese translation” as the title. What you have now as the title, “Sinhalese Atthakatha (Atuwa, Sinhalese translation of Atthakatha, Commentaries)” really belongs in the description. It would be like uploading a translation of the Digha Nikaya and titling it “Sutta Pitaka, English translation” Also, I think it really shouldn’t be called “Sinhalese Atthakatha.” Wouldn’t Pali Atthakatha be more accurate? Also better for keyword searching.
Interesting that the book doesn’t seem to have a copyright in the front. But I’m sure you could find out if you just called the BCC.
I’ll keep it wrong for the time being, because this is what represents the Sinhalese translation of the Commentaries in my profile. If you contact BCC and get permission for me to upload it, I will upload it with proper title including all the other books from the set.
I have a large collection of the English translations of the Pali Commentaries.
But my donors spent a lot of money (especially PTS translations are very expensive) and they are mostly Abhidhamma and Khuddaka Nikaya. Vinaya is available as “Shan-Chien-P’i-P’o-Sha, Sanghabhadra’s Chinese Samantapasadika” (tr. by Prof. P.V. Bapat and Prof. A. Hirakawa), but it is very inaccurate, because it is a translation from two Buddhist Vinaya Pitakas into one… (and, as you would expect, it doesn’t mention which part is selected from which source…)
I heard that a Sri Lanka monk started a translation of MNA and that it was rejected by PTS because it doesn’t come to their standard. I contacted PTS and they said they never got something like that.
Right. For some reason they have avoided the major Sutta commentaries.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, but this isn’t what this text is. It is a translation from a Chinese text whose title would have been something like Sudassanavinayavibhāsā. This text was taken from Sri Lanka to China and translated there around 400 CE or a bit later. Some parts of it bear much in common with the Samantapasadika, so the translators, and several other scholars, regard it as a Chinese translation of the Samantapasadika.
Personally I doubt this, as the differences are simply too great, and follow a consistent pattern. I believe—following Guruge—that the Sudassanavinayavibhāsā is more likely to have been translated from an otherwise lost version of the old Sinhala commentaries. Hence, it would have been a source work for the Samantapasadika, or else they both drew from a separate source commentary that has been lost.
Scholars explain the differences by saying that the translation was incomplete, but to me this is not convincing. The differences are not random, but follow a pattern that one might expect if an old commentary were updated for the purposes of the Mahavihara.
As an example, in the Sudassanavinayavibhāsā one arahant—Moggaliputtatissa if I recall correctly—is said to be an expert in the Tripitaka, whereas in the Samantapasadika he is said to be an expert in the Tripitaka and commentaries. In another case, an arahant is said to have the six abhinna in the Sudassanavinayavibhāsā, but the patisambhidas in the Samantapasadika; as is well-known, the patisambhidas were especially emphasized in the Mahavihara. These kinds of differences are found rather consistently, and point to an editorial process that adapted the old commentary to the then-current perspective of the Mahavihara.
There was one monk in Brisbane doing this, he was a student of Rod Bucknell. But I believe he was working on a single vagga, or maybe a pannasa. But I haven’t heard from him in years, I suspect he may have disrobed.