The Visuddhimagga—here rendered Path of Purification—is perhaps unique in the literature of the world. It systematically summarizes and interprets the teaching of the Buddha contained in the Pali Tripitaka, which is now recognized in Europe as the oldest and most authentic record of the Buddha’s words. As the principal non-canonical authority of the Theraváda, it forms the hub of a complete and coherent method of exegesis of the Tripitaka, using the “Abhidhamma method” as it is called. And it sets out detailed practical instructions for developing purification of mind.
BACKGROUND AND MAIN FACTS
The works of Bhadantácariya Buddhaghosa fill more than thirty volumes in the Pali Text Society’s Latin-script edition; but what is known of the writer himself is meager enough for a page or two to contain the bare facts. Before dealing with those facts, however, and in order that they may appear oriented, it is worth while first to digress a little by noting how Pali literature falls naturally into three main historical periods. The early or classical period, which may be called the First Period, begins with the Tripitaka itself in the 6th century BCE and ends with the Milindapañhá about five centuries later. These works, composed in India, were brought to Sri Lanka, where they were maintained in Pali but written about in Sinhalese. By the first century CE, Sanskrit (independently of the rise of Mahayana) or a vernacular had probably quite displaced Pali as the medium of study in all the Buddhist “schools” on the Indian mainland. Literary activity in Sri Lanka declined and, it seems, fell into virtual abeyance between CE 150 and 350, as will appear below. The first Pali renascence was under way in Sri Lanka and South India by about 400 and was made viable by Bhadantácariya Buddhaghosa. This can be called the Middle Period. Many of its principal figures were Indian. It developed in several centers in the South Indian mainland and spread to Burma, and it can be said to have lasted till about the 12th century.
Meanwhile the renewed literary activity again declined in Sri Lanka till it was eclipsed by the disastrous invasion of Magha in the 11th century. The second renascence, or the Third Period as it may be termed, begins in the following century with Sri Lanka’s recovery, coinciding more or less with major political changes in Burma. In Sri Lanka it lasted for several centuries and in Burma for much longer, though India about that time or soon after lost all forms of Buddhism. But this period does not concern the present purpose and is only sketched in for the sake of perspective.
The recorded facts relating from the standpoint of Sri Lanka to the rise of the Middle Period are very few, and it is worthwhile tabling them. Why did Bhadantácariya Buddhaghosa come to Sri Lanka? And why did his work become famous beyond the island’s shores? The bare facts without some interpretation will hardly answer these questions. Certainly, any interpretation must be speculative; but if this is borne in mind, some attempt (without claim for originality) may perhaps be made on the following lines.
Up till the reign of King Vattagamini Abhaya in the first century BCE the Great Monastery, founded by Asoka’s son, the Arahant Mahinda, and hitherto without a rival for the royal Favour, had preserved a reputation for the saintliness of its bhikkhus. The violent upsets in his reign followed by his founding of the Abhayagiri Monastery, its secession and schism, changed the whole situation at home. Sensing insecurity, the Great Monastery took the precaution to commit the Tripitaka for the first time to writing, doing so in the provinces away from the king’s presence. Now by about the end of the first century BCE (dates are very vague), with Sanskrit Buddhist literature just launching out upon its long era of magnificence, Sanskrit was on its way to become a language of international culture. In Sri Lanka the Great Monastery, already committed by tradition to strict orthodoxy based on Pali, had been confirmed in that attitude by the schism of its rival, which now began publicly to study the new ideas from India. In the first century BCE probably the influx of Sanskrit thought was still quite small, so that the Great Monastery could well maintain its name in Anurádhapura as the principal center of learning by developing its ancient Tripitaka commentaries in Sinhalese. This might account for the shift of emphasis from practice to scholarship in King Vattagaminii’s reign. Evidence shows great activity in this latter field throughout the first century BCE, and all this material was doubtless written down too.
In the first century CE, Sanskrit Buddhism (“Hìnayána,” and perhaps by then Maháyána) was growing rapidly and spreading abroad. The Abhayagiri Monastery would naturally have been busy studying and advocating some of these weighty developments while the Great Monastery had nothing new to offer: the rival was thus able, at some risk, to appear go-ahead and up-to-date while the old institution perhaps began to fall behind for want of new material, new inspiration and international connections, because its studies being restricted to the orthodox presentation in the Sinhalese language, it had already done what it could in developing Tipitaka learning (on the mainland Theraváda was doubtless deeper in the same predicament). Anyway, we find that from the first century onwards its constructive scholarship dries up, and instead, with the reign of King Bhátika Abhaya (BCE 20–CE 9), public wrangles begin to break out between the two monasteries. This scene indeed drags on, gradually worsening through the next three centuries, almost bare as they are of illuminating information. King Vasabha’s reign (CE 66–110) seems to be the last mentioned in the Commentaries as we have them now, from which it may be assumed that soon afterwards they were closed (or no longer kept up), nothing further being added. Perhaps the Great Monastery, now living only on its past, was itself getting infected with heresies. But without speculating on the immediate reasons that induced it to let its chain of teachers lapse and to cease adding to its body of Sinhalese learning, it is enough to note that the situation went on deteriorating, further complicated by intrigues, till in Mahásena’s reign (CE 277–304) things came to a head.
With the persecution of the Great Monastery given royal assent and the expulsion of its bhikkhus from the capital, the Abhayagiri Monastery enjoyed nine years of triumph. But the ancient institution rallied its supporters in the southern provinces and the king repented. The bhikkhus returned and the king restored the buildings, which had been stripped to adorn the rival. Still, the Great Monastery must have foreseen, after this affair, that unless it could successfully compete with Sanskrit it had small hope of holding its position. With that the only course open was to launch a drive for the rehabilitation of Pali—a drive to bring the study of that language up to a standard fit to compete with the “modern” Sanskrit in the field of international Buddhist culture: by cultivating Pali at home and abroad it could assure its position at home. It was a revolutionary project, involving the displacement of Sinhalese by Pali as the language for the study and discussion of Buddhist teachings, and the founding of a school of Pali literary composition. Earlier it would doubtless have been impracticable; but the atmosphere had changed. Though various Sanskrit non-Mahayana sects are well known to have continued to flourish all over India, there is almost nothing to show the status of the Pali language there by now. Only the Mahavamsa [XXXVII.215f. quoted below] suggests that the Theraváda sect there had not only put aside but lost perhaps all of its old non- Pitaka material dating from Asoka’s time. One may guess that the pattern of things in Sri Lanka only echoed a process that had gone much further in India. But in the island of Sri Lanka the ancient body of learning, much of it pre-Asokan, had been kept lying by, as it were maturing in its two and a half centuries of neglect, and it had now acquired a new and great potential value due to the purity of its pedigree in contrast with the welter of new original thinking. Theraváda centers of learning on the mainland were also doubtless much interested and themselves anxious for help in a repristinization. Without such cooperation there was little hope of success. It is not known what was the first original Pali composition in this period; but the Dìpavamsa (dealing with historical evidence) belongs here (for it ends with Mahásena’s reign and is quoted in the Samantapásádiká), and quite possibly the Vimuttimagga (dealing with practice—see below) was another early attempt by the Great Monastery in this period (4th cent.) to reassert its supremacy through original Pali literary composition: there will have been others too. Of course, much of this is very conjectural. Still it is plain enough that by 400 CE a movement had begun, not confined to Sri Lanka, and that the time was ripe for the crucial work, for a Pali recension of the Sinhalese Commentaries with their unique tradition. Only the right personality, able to handle it competently, was yet lacking. That personality appeared in the first quarter of the fifth century.
THE VISUDDHIMAGGA AND ITS AUTHOR
Sources of information about that person fall into three groups. There are firstly the scraps contained in the prologues and epilogues to the works ascribed to him. Then there is the account given in the second part of the Sri Lankan Chronicle, the Mahavamsa (or Culavamsa as the part of it is often called), written in about the 13th century, describing occurrences placed by it in the 5th century, and, lastly, the still later Buddhaghosuppatti (15th cent.) and other later works.
It seems still uncertain how to evaluate the old Talaing records of Burma, which may not refer to the same person (see below). India herself tells us nothing at all. It seems worthwhile, therefore, to give a rendering here of the principal passage from the prologues and epilogues of the works ascribed to him by name; for they are few and short, and they have special authentic value as evidence. The Mahávaísa account will be reproduced in full, too, since it is held to have been composed from evidence and records before its author, and to have the ring of truth behind the legends it contains. But the later works (which European scholars hold to be legendary rather than historical in what they add to the accounts already mentioned) can only be dealt with very summarily here.
The books actually ascribed to Bhadantácariya Buddhaghosa have each a “postscript” identical in form with that at the end of Chapter XXIII of the present work, mentioning the title and author by name. This can be taken to have been appended, presumably contemporaneously, by the Great Monastery (the Mahavamsa) at Anurádhapura in Sri Lanka as their official seal of approval. Here is a list of the works (also listed in the modern Gandhavamsa and Sasanavamsa with one or two discrepancies).
Commentaries to the Vinaya Pitaka
Title Commentary to
Samantapásádiká Vinaya
Kaòkhávitaraóì Pátimokkha
Commentaries to the Sutta Pitaka
Title Commentary to
Sumangala Vilasini Dìgha Nikáya
Papañcasúdani Majjhima Nikáya
Sáratthappakásinì Saíyutta Nikáya
Manorathapuráóì Anguttara Nikáya
Paramatthajotiká Khuddakapátha
Commentary to Suttanipáta
Title Commentary to
Dhammapadatthakathá Dhammapada
Játakatthakathá Játaka
Commentaries to the Abhidhamma Pitaka
Title Commentary to
Atthasálinì Dhammasangaani
Sammohavinodanì Vibhanga
Pañcappakaranatthakathá Remaining 5 books
Beyond the bare hint that he came to Sri Lanka from India his actual works tell nothing about his origins or background. He mentions “The Elder Buddhamitta with whom I formerly lived at Mayúra suttapattana” (M-a epil.), and “The well-known Elder Jotipála, with whom I once lived at Kañcipura and elsewhere” (A-a epil.). Also the “postscript” attached to the Visuddhimagga says, besides mentioning
his name, that he “should be called ‘of Morandacetaka.’” And that is all.
The Path of Purification
Translated by
Bhikkhu Ñānamoli