DHAMMAPALA AND THE TIKA

LITERATURE

Lance S. Cousins
Lecturer in Comparative Religion, University of Manchester

A review of Dighanikaya-atthakatha-,tika Linatthavannand, attr. Dhammapala,

edited by Lily De Silva . Pali Text Society, London, 1970, 3 vols .,
PP- lxxxiii + 1 ,349, 33 - 5o.
In his classic work on Indian literature, Winternitz writes as follows :
`From the time of Buddhaghosa down to the revival of Pali literature in the
twelfth century, we have in Ceylon scarcely more than a handful of names
of authors and titles . . .' 1 More recently, this view was challenged by
S . Paranavitana : `According to views held by most Pali scholars, all literary
activity in the Mahavihara ceased for about five centuries after the com-
pletion of the commentaries in the generation after that of Buddhaghosa .
It is, however, not improbable that some of the numerous works handed
down under the names of Buddhaghosa and Dhammapala, which, from
the evidence of language and style, are obviously the works of less-competent
writers, may belong to the centuries between the sixth and the tenth .'2
As our knowledge of the later period increases, it becomes more and more
clear that the period may well have been more eventful than Winternitz
allowed. So one can only welcome the achievement of Lily De Silva in edit-
ing for the Pali Text Society the 1,349 pages of the tika (sub-commentary)
to the Digha-nikaya attributed to Dhammapala . In her introduction (81
pages) Dr De Silva discusses the problems of authorship and date . She
comes finally and with some hesitation to the surprising conclusion that the
author of this tika and probably of others, including that to the Visuddhi-
magga, is indeed the Dhammapala responsible for commentaries to seven
of the works in the Khuddaka-nikaya . More surprisingly still, she appears to
incline to the view that he can be identified with the Dharmapala of
Nalanda who is referred to on a number of occasions by the Chinese pilgrims
Hsuan-tsang and I-thing . Failing this, she suggests that he would be a
contemporary of this Dharmapala whom she dates to the early seventh
century .
This requires some discussion. Since Hardy's rejection3 of the identifica-
tion of the Pali with the Sanskrit scholar, most authorities have assumed
that the two are distinct. De Silva shows, however, (Introd . pp . xlix-
li), that the author of the Digha-tika has at least some knowledge of
Sanskrit and of Sanskrit grammar as well as some acquaintance with the
main systems of Indian philosophy . Beyond doubt, this weakens Hardy's
159


16o REVIEW ARTICLES

case . In the works so far available, Dhammapala's rejection of the Mahayana
is not as clear as Buddhaghosa's . 4 In the Cariyapitaka commentary 5 he dis-
cusses the six perfections (paramilparamita) of Sanskrit tradition quite favour-
ably, viewing them as a condensation (sangaha-vasena) of the ten perfection
normal in Pali tradition .
New evidence can be adduced from the tika to the Samyutta-nikaya in
which, commenting upon Buddhaghosa's identification of the Mahayanist
Vetulla- or Vedalha pitaka 6 as `not the word of Buddha', we read :
I ' Vedalhapitaka" is the same as Vedallapitaka . They say that this was
I

brought from the Naga realm. 7 Others [say] that it was spoken as a
sectarian utterance . [It is referred to] as "not the word of the Buddha"
because it is in contradiction to the word of the Buddha . For the Com-
pletely Enlightened One did not say anything contradictory to what he
said elsewhere . In this [Vedallapitaka] they produce the sting [of passion],
the disciplining of defilements is not seen, on the contrary there is a cause
for the production of defilements .' 8
In view of this last, it seems unlikely that the author of the tikd could be
the same as the Yogacarin philosopher, although one could not rule out a
conversion later in life . Moreover, Chinese sources arguably suggest dates
for the latter A .D . C . 530-561 . 9 This is serious in view of the likely dating
of the ,tika literature . The Digha-tika quotes from both the Vakyapadiya of
Bhartrhari (d . A .D . 651) and the Amara-ko,ta of Amarasimha (date uncer-
tain) . While it is possible to hold with De Silva that Dhammapala is
citing his contemporary Bhartrhari, it would seem much safer to allow for
a lapse of time . This would rule out any relationship with Dharmapala of
Nalanda . A much greater difficulty is raised by the reference in the Digha-
tikd 10 to the views of the Advetavddino . De Silva does not discuss this,
but it seems unlikely that the term Advaitavada would have been widely
used before gankara . This would make a date prior to the ninth century
improbable .
De Silva attempts to refute Saddhatissa's 11 arguments for dating the
tikd to the Visuddhi-magga to the tenth century . The most telling evidence
adduced by Ven . Saddhatissa is that from the colophon to this ,tikd which
states that it was written at the request of Dathanaga, a dweller in the Sittha-
gama-parivena . Whether or not Ven. Saddhatissa is correct in identifying
this Dathanaga with the instigator of the Maha-bodhi-vamsa and with the
thera who preached to Mahinda IV (A .D . 956-972), he is certainly right in
citing the Cula-vamsa as evidence that the Sitthagama-parivena was built
by Sena IV (A .D . 954-956) . De Silva cites12 a number of places with
names similar to Sitthagama near Kaiici, but there is no evidence that there
was ever a parivena at any of these places . Probably we should also accept
Ven. Saddhatissa's identification of Dathanaga as a reasonable probability ;
it cannot be far wrong in time .
In the circumstances it seems clear that the Visuddhi-magga-tika is not
earlier than A .D . 955. The Digha-tikd cites 13 this work no less than eighteen
times . It is also cited in the Samyutta-tika . 14 Both these latter tika cite the


REVIEW ARTICLES 161

Majjhima-,tika . 15 The author of the Digha-,tika refers also to the Anguttara-

tika 18 as his own work (amhehi . . . dassitd) . On the basis of the information
available at present, it seems likely that the ,tika to the four nikayas and to
the Visuddhi-magga were written as a unit by a single author (helped perhaps
by his pupils) in very much the same manner as the Visuddhi-magga and the
commentaries of Buddhaghosa.17 To these, we should probably add the
,tika to the Nettipakarana which commences in exactly the same manner as
the tika to the four nikayas. 18 Probably also the tika to the Jataka and the
anutika to the Abhidhammapitaka are by the same author . The ,tika to the
Buddha-vamsa, 19 if still extant, is not available to me for examination.
Ven. Saddhatissa 20 identifies the above writer with the author of Sacca-
sankhepa, sometimes attributed to Culla-Dhammapala the senior pupil of
Amanda 21 sometimes attributed to Amanda himself 22 This identification
is, however, impossible because the Sacca-sankhepa 23 rejects the existence of
the moment of presence (thiti-khaa) and prefers to accept only the moments
of uprising (uppada) and ceasing (bhanga) . This is the view of Amanda in
the Mula-tika to the Abhidhamma pitaka ." However, both the Visuddhi-
magga-tikd25 and the Samyutta-,tika-'e follow Buddhaghosa in accepting three
moments . Tradition is no doubt correct in attributing the work either to
Amanda or, more probably, to his pupil (Culla-) Dhammapala. It is likely
to be older than the commentaries and tika attributed to Dhammapala ; for
the Mula-,tika of Amanda is already cited in the commentary to the Udana. 27
It is at this point that the evidence adduced by De Silva is of great
value. She cites 28 the works (Anguttara-,tika and Sdr'-attha-dipani) of the
twelfth-century writer Sariputta and establishes beyond doubt that Sari-
putta believed a single Dhammapala responsible both for the commentaries
on Nettipakarana, Uddna, Cariyapitaka, Thera gatha and Theri-gatha and for
the tika on Visuddhi-magga, Digha-nikaya and Santyutta-nikaya. If the dating
followed above is correct, Sariputta lived within two centuries of the writer
of the tika. His evidence is relatively close in time . Nevertheless, it must be
remembered that the early eleventh century was a time of invasion and
disorder in Ceylon during which the continuity of tradition might easily
have been lost .
A careful internal examination of all the fourteen works attributed to
Dhammapala by the Gandha-vamsa 28 is obviously desirable . Unfortunately,
almost half are as yet unedited in Roman script . Nevertheless, some facts
are already clear. The Digha-,tika cites by name the commentaries to Udana,
Cariyapitaka, Thera gatha, Vimana-vatthu and Peta-vatthu . Of the remaining
three, we know that the commentary to the Iti-vuttaka is by the same author
as that to the Udana.80 We know also that the commentaries to Thera- and
Thengatha were written as a single work . 31 The commentary to the Netti-
pakarana is cited in the commentary to the Thera-gatha. 32
The chronological order which emerges may be expressed as follows .
The commentaries to Iti-vuttaka, Udana, Thera gatha and Therigatha were
written in that order. Those to Cariyapitaka and Nettipakarana are prior to
the Thera-gatha commentary. The commentary to the Vimana-vatthu was
written before that to the Peta-vatthu. All eight are prior to the Digha-tika.


162 REVIEW ARTICLES

That the seven Khuddaka-nikaya commentaries are the work of a single
Dhammapala has been generally conceded . 33 Despite Hardy's vigorous
defence, 34 the attribution to Dhammapala of the commentary to the Netti-
pakarana has been questioned 36 on the grounds that the colophon states that
the work was written while dwelling in the Dhammasoka-maharaja-vihara
at Naga-pattana .The Badara-tittha-vihara, Dhammapala's usual dwelling-
place, is unlikely to have been at Naga-pattana 38 as Badara-tittha appears
to have been on the coast near Kanci . However, the objection is in any case
without force . There is no reason to suppose that Dhammapala remained
always in the same monastery and every cause to assume the the opposite .
In other respects the introductions and colophons of all eight works strongly
resemble one another .
We are left with two groups : firstly the eight commentaries and secondly
a number of tika. The latter appear to be datable to the tenth century .
The former are undated if we reject the evidence of the Chinese pilgrims . 37
They must, however, post-date the Mula-tikd ofAnanda due to the reference
in the Uddna commentary (cited above) . It is not clear when the first tika
were written in Buddhist Sanskrit . De Silva's discussion38 is rather in-
conclusive, but it may be suggested that among the earliest certain works
are the Kafyapa parivarta-tika translated into Chinese by Bodhiruci C . A .D .
5 039 and the tika of Sthiramati II (sixth century) . 40 It may be doubted
whether the Mula-tikd could in the circumstances long antedate A .D . 500
and on the whole it seems likely that it is somewhat later . Clearly, a critical
edition of this work emerges as a priority .
The choice appears to lie between a unitary authorship in the tenth
century41 and separating the authorship of the commentaries and tika. 42
The first alternative cannot be ruled out ; it has the support of Sariputta .
Without a systematic analysis arguments based upon stylistic resemblance
cannot be relied upon, but De Silva43 shows that the tika writer, if not
identical with the author of the commentaries, is heavily influenced by him .
This is intuitively attractive . Nor is it impossible that these works could
have remained uncommented down to the tenth century . The commentary
to the Apaddna is even later than the tika attributed to Dhammapala. It
refers 44 to the grammar to Kaccayana and employs his terminology which
is still unknown to the tenth-century tika.
Two major difficulties remain. The first is the tika to the Nettipakarana .
It has long been realized that it is unlikely that Dhammapala wrote a tika
to his own commentary. Equally serious is the attribution to Dhammapala
of a tika to the Buddha-vamsa ; 46 for the commentary to the Buddha-vamsa
refers 46 to Dhammapala's commentary on the Vimdna-vatthu . This appears
to be conclusive . The chronology of Pali literature which emerges can
be tabulated as on the opposite page .
Obviously, in the present state of our knowledge, these suggestions
cannot be definitive . In the cases of Ananda, Culla-Dhammapala, Dham-
mapala I and the Buddha-vamsa commentary only a relative chronology is
intended . No doubt also a number of other works belong to this period . 51
In conclusion, a few comments upon the edition seem called for . It is


REVIEW ARTICLES 163

C . A .D . 430 Buddhadatta Vinaya-viniuhaya, Uttara-vinicchaya, Ab-

hidhammdvatdra, Ruparapa-vibhdga .
C. A .D . 430 Buddhaghosa Visuddhi-magga and commentaries to the
whole canon except for the Khuddaka-
nikdya . 47
Buddhaghosa (?) Khuddakapdtha and Sutta-nipata com-
mentaries .48
C. A .D . 440 attr . Buddhaghosa Jdtaka commentary."
C . A.D . 450 attr . Buddhaghosa Dhamma-pada commentary." .49
C . A.D . 500 Upasena Niddesa commentary.
C . A .D . 520 Mahanama Patisambhida-magga commentary ."
Perhaps 6th century Ananda Tikd to the Abhidhamma-pitaka .
Perhaps 6th century Culla-Dhammapala Sacca-sahkhepa.
Perhaps 7th century Dhammapala I Commentaries to Iti-vuttaka, Uddna,
Cariyapitaka, Nettipakara,a, Thera-
gdtha, Theri-gatha, Vimana-vatthu and
Peta-vatthu .
Perhaps 8th century attr . Buddhadatta Buddha-vamsa commentary .
C . A.D.960 Dhammapala II Tika to the four nikayas, anutikd to the
Abhidhamma pitaka, /ikd to Visuddhi-
magga, Jdtaka, Nettipakarai a, Buddha-
vamsa.
11th century Kaccayana Vyaharatza .
Post-iith century attr . Buddhaghosa Apaddna commentary .

based upon six Sinhalese MSS ., the Burmese Chatthasangayana edition and a
Sinhalese copy of a recent Burmese source . 52 It is perhaps to be regretted
that no use was made of Burmese or Kambodian MSS . nor of the older
Burmese editions of 19o6, 1912 and 1915 . Nevertheless, as a whole the
standard appears high and the editing careful . The editor is perhaps slightly
partial towards the Sinhalese tradition and occasionally, perhaps, the re-
jected Burmese reading might be preferred or the reconstructed reading
questioned . A more serious fault would be the absence of an index, but I
understand53 that Mrs De Silva is to produce an index volume shortly . It
is to be hoped that it will be comprehensive .

NOTES

Abbreviations used in this article are those of the Critical Phi Dictionary : Epilegomena to
Vol. I, Helmer Smith, Copenhagen, 1948 .
i . M. Winternitz : History of Indian Literature, Vol. II, Calcutta, 1933, p . 220.
2. In H . C. Ray : University of Ceylon History of Ceylon, Vol . I, Colombo, 1959, P 392 .
3. E. Hardy : 'Bin Beitrag zur Frage, ob Dhammapala im Nalandasatgharama seine
Kmmmentar geschrieben', ZDMG 51, 1897, pp. 105-127 .
4 . E.g ., Mp III 160, 8 ; SP IV 742, 31 ; Sv 11566, 33 ; Spk II 201, 25fF
5. Cp-a 278, 4-5 ; 321, 33 - 322, 25 ; =Sv-pt 1 88, Is-13 ; 121, 18-122, r8 .
6. See P. S. Jaini : Abhidharma-dipa, Patna, 1959, Introd . pp . 123-124 ; Abhidharma-
samuccaya (Ed. P . Pradhan), Visva-Bharati Studies 12, p . 79, 1-5 .
7. For Nagarjuna's bringing of the Prajiuipdramitd from the Naga world, see : E . Zurcher :
The Buddhist Conquest of China, Leiden, 1959, P . 340 ; E. Lamotte : 'Sur la formation du
Mahayana', Asiatica (Festschrift F . Weller), Leipzig, 1954, P . 384 and `Maiijusri',
T'oung Pao, XLVIII, 1960, pp . 42-43 .


164 REVIEW ARTICLES

8 . Spk-pt II (B ig61) 171, 4-7 reading the vl :
Vedgj/ra pitakan ti vedala-p4akarh. Tam Naga-bhavanato anitan ti vadanti . Vada-
bhasitan ti apare . A-Buddha-vacanan ti Buddha-vacanena virujjhanato . Na hi
Sambuddho pubbapara-viruddham vadati . Tattha sallam upatthapenti, kilesa-
vinayam na sandissati, aMa-d-atthu kites'-uppattiya paccayo hot! ti .
9. So H. Ui cited E . Frauwallner `Landmarks in the History of Indian Logic', WZKM 5,
1961, pp . 132 fl.
10. Sv-pt I 223, 26.
11 . H . SaddhAtissa : Updsakajandlankdra, PTS, London, 1965, p . 29-
12 . Sv-pt I Introd. p . xlvii .
13 . Sv-pt 1278, 12; 304. 20 ; 3 12 . 25 ; 3 27, 7 ; II 76, 8 ; 85, 4 ; 100, 4 ; 186, 30 ; 388,5 ;
390, 24 ; 405. 13 ; 111 49, 5 ; 66, z8; 94, 20 ; 264, 19 ; 277, 20 ; 302, 7 ; 32 7, 5-
14- E .g ., Spk-pt I (B 1961) 87, 29 ; 170, 10 -
1 5- Sv-pt 11445, 27 ; Spk-pt I (B 1961) 55, 1,7 ; 105, 4-
16 . Sv-pt I 35, 17 ; not of course the later tikd of Sariputta as Introd. p. lxiv, but see Gv
6o, 12-13 .
17 . l arlamoli : The Path of Purification, Colombo, 1864, p . xvii .
18 . V . Fausboll : `Catalogue of the Mandalay MSS . in the India Office Library', JPTS,
1896, p . 42-
. Gv 6o, 14-15.
1g
20 . H . Saddhatissa : op . cit., pp . 30-31 .
21 . Gv 6o, 30-31 ; Sas 34, 2-3 ; Sacc-pt (Bm copied for Helmer Smith) .
22. Saddhamma-s 62, 32-33; Sacc-nt (Bm copied for Helmer Smith) .
23. Sacc 54-55-
24- Sar amoli : op . cit., p. xxix n.
25 . 1Yapamoli : op . cit., PP- 155 n ., 748 n .
26. Spk-pt 1 (B 1861) 75, 21-25.
27. Ud-a 94, 9-
28. Sv-pt I Introd. pp. li-lv.
29. Gv 6o, 5- 17 .
30. Ud-a 46, r8.
31 . Thi-a 77 . 5-6.
32 . Th-a III 21, 16-17 ; It-a, Cp-a and Ud-a are also cited .
33 . E .g., Winternitz : op. cit ., pp. 205 ff ; G . P . Malalasekera : Pali Literature of Ceylon,
London, 1928, pp . 112-116 ; Saddhatissa : op . cit., pp . 28-31 .
34 . E . Hardy : Netti-pakaratia, PTS, London, 1902, Introd. pp. ix-xvii .
35 . H . C . Ray : op. cit ., P . 391 .
36. So SaddhAtissa : op. cit ., p . 30 ; De Silva : op . cit ., p . xlii.
37. But see T. W. Rhys Davids in ERE, VOL 4, p. 701 fl: I find it difficult to believe that
Hsuan-tsang would have been as seriously in error as Hardy and Rhys Davids sup-
pose . It seems preferable to assume that the Chinese pilgrim was correct in stating
Dharmapala of Niilanda was a native of Karlci-pura . The name was no doubt com-
mon in the sa,gha. If so, we have no terminus ad quern for DhammapAla prior to the
tenth century.
38 . Sv-pt I Introd. p . xxx .
39 . Cf. Yuichi Kajiyama : 'BhAvaviveka, Sthiramati and Dharmapala', Festschrift far
Erich FrauwaUner, WZKM, Vienna, 1868, p . 1 95-
4o . Cf. D. S. Ruegg : La thlorie du tathdgatagarbha et du gotra, Paris, 1969, pp. 34 & 42 .
41 . Sv-pt I Introd ., p. xliv n . cites this as the view of A . P. Buddhadatta .
42. So Saddhitissa : op. cit., pp . 29-31 ; A . K. Warder : Indian Buddhism, Delhi, 1970,
PP- 47 1-47 2 -
43 . Sv-pt I Introd . pp. xlii-xliii.
4.4. Ap-a 491, 19-20 ; As, Dh-a and Th-a are also cited by name .
45. Gv 6o, r4-r5.
46. By-a 284, 27.
47 . Cf. Sv-pt I 19, 13-21 which regards Sv, Ps, Spk, Mp and As as works of the same
author .


REVIEW ARTICLES 165

48 . So E . W . Burlingame : Buddhist Legends, Harvard, 1921, Pt one, pp . 48-60 ; but for a
powerful defence of the traditional attributions, see 1Qapamoli : op. cit., pp. xvii-
xxi.
49 . But at Th-a 111 35 n. F. L . Woodward attributes Dh-a to Dhammapala .
50 . Cf. S. Paranavitana, H . C . Ray : op . cit., pp . 391-392 ; Patis-a cites by name Vism,
Sp, Spk and Vibh-a, but not the works of Dhammapala ; see also 1CTaiiamoli : op .
cit., p. xxx n .
51 . E .g., Vajira-buddhi;tik6, SankhMra-p4aka, Mafia-bodhi-oartlsa, Nirutti pakarana .
52 . MS . P resembles the 'Ka' variant readings of the Burmese editions .
53 . Personal communication from Miss I . B . Horner .