Papers presented at the International Buddhist Conference, March ...

Theriya Parampara represented by the Mahavihara. “The disfavor
with which Ceylon kings and monks viewed any encroachment by
Vaitulya doctrines on the Theravada Buddhism of the Island had
made it impossible for much exchange of scholarship to take place
4
between the two countries”.
There are evidences to show that Vaitulya-Vada and some form of
Mahayana existed and become Vital time to time in Ceylon, Fahien,
the famous Chinese pilgrim, tells us that Mahavihara monks
were opposed to the Mahayana teachings and adhered to the
teachings of Hina-yana. But in Abhayagiri school both vehicles
5
were studied. Fa-hien took with him a copy of Mahisasaka Vinaya,
Dirghagama, Samyuttagama and Samyutta-sañcaya-pitaka, all
6
written in Sanskrit. It shows that in Srilanka there existed school
like Mahisasaka and Sanskrit was the language used by some
Buddhist sects in Srilanka. According to Nikaya Sangraha,
Mahadaliyatissa accepted the teachings of Dhammarucinikaya of
Vajjiputtaka sects in India and thenceforth the Abhayagiri school
7
was known as Dhammruchinikaya.
However no trace of their literature is left. Most probably the
rulers of Ceylon, owing to their strong attachment to Theriya
Parampara saw to it that not a vestige of their heretical teachings
should remain. There are many examples of the rigid attitude of the
Theravadins against the thoughts of other Buddhist sects. In a
8
passage of Samantapasadika it is reported that during the reign of
Srilankan king Bhatiya (38-66 A.D.) a dispute arose between the
monks of the Abhayagiri and the Mahavihara schools for a rule of
the Vinaya. The king appointed a minister, the Brahmana
Dighakarayana to decide the case. This Brahma˜a was wise and
versed in other languages: -
“Pandito Bhasantarakusalo”.
Thus this person was not reputed for the knowledge of Vinaya
rules but was proficient in languages. From this fact same9
scholars infer that the main reason of the differences between the
monks of these two monasteries was more of a linguistic nature
than of a doctrinal. The Abhayagiri Vihara was greatly influenced
by Mahayana in which the texts were preserved in Sanskrit, not in
Pali. The choice of a Brahmana minister well versed in Sanskrit
also confirms this hypothesis. There are also no traces of any
impact of Srilanka’s Theriya Parampara on the Philosophical
writings of Vaibhatikas, Sautrantikas, Yogacara and Madhyamika
schools of Indian Buddhism.
It is probable that regular exchange of visits by Indian and
Srilankan monks must have facilitated some sort of interaction
between two nations. Although impact of these interactions are not
clearly visible and is not firmly admitted by the Theravada
tradition of Srilanka, however major shift in the Atthakathas from
the original position of the Tipitaka concerning the Buddhahood or
Buddha-nature, the introduction of the process of cognition (cittavithi)
not discussed in the early Abhidhamma and installation of
the icons of Buddha or the worship of the Buddha Pratima etc.
seem to show some sort of impact of Indo-Ceylonese interface.
9
According to some western writers Buddhaghosa, who was
acquainted with the developed Buddhist doctrines in India, has an
interesting doctrine of the relations of sanna, (perception), vinnana
and panna and gave idealistic interpretation of aspects of sensation
and feeling which in the early writings was perceived as an
interaction of material and psychic factors. The Vaibhatikas and
Sautrantikas also accepted the real interaction of matter and mind
in the process of knowing. It seems that Buddhaghosa accepted in
effect vijnanavada doctrine propounding that object of perception
is mere subjective (ideal or reflection of mind). The concepts of
Bhavatga and Citta-vithi also seem to be an outcome of the Indo-
Ceylonese Cultural interface.
Age-long cultural interaction between India and Srilanka had deep
impact on the linguistcal aspects of Ceylonese culture. It may be
seen clearly in the form of gradually increasing influence of
Sanskrit Language on Sinhali and later Pali writings. In the
linguistic survey of Srilanka it is clearly observed by scholars that
besides Sinhali and Pali, Classical Sanskrit was gradually coming
into use and rapidly became the medium for the study of scholarly
secular works composed in India. It is interesting to observe that
unlike Mahayanists and Sarvastivadins of India Srilanka’s
Theravadains did not replace Magadhi or Pali by Sanskrit, nor did
they adopt hybrid or mixed Sanskrit which was adopted for the
Mahayana sutras in India. Most probably the adaptation of
Sanskrit by Srilankans is not an outcome of the interaction between
the Buddhists of India and Srilanka. It is assumed that intimate
relations existed between the Tamils and the Sinhalese settlers
from an early period of the history of Ceylon and there presence in
the island might have proved helpful in attracting the intellectuals
for the study of Sanskrit.
It seems probable that in the beginning Sanskrit language
influenced the vocabulary and syntax of Sinhali. Soon after
learning the elements of Sanskrit the Ceylonese writer introduced
Sanskrit forms in their writings of high Sinhalese. Later on
Sinhlese authors composed several works in pure Sanskrit.
Buddhadasa a king of Srilanka, compiled his memorable work
“Sarartha-sangraha in pure Sanskrit”. Candragomi vyakarana
pañjika aand shabdartha cinta] these two works of Sanskrit
grammar were written by Elder ratnashrijñana also called
ratnamatipada in about 11th Century A.D. Kumara Dhatusena or
Kumaradasa composed a melodious Sanskrit poem
“Janakiharana.” Composition of such works in pure Sanskrit
indicates that more attention began to be given to secular subjects
and Sanskrit comes to be regarded as being of the first importance
for that purpose.
The Ceylon Pali Writings of later periods –
Mahabodhivamsa, written in the last quarter of 10th century by a
Ceylonese monk Upatissa marks the beginning of the period of
Sanskritized Pali. There are distinct traces of the influences of
Sanskrit on the Pali language of the book. Sometimes Pali words
are used in their Sanskrit sense, sometimes we see the use of such
Sanskrit words which are not found at all in the old Pali literature.
Some of them are: -
i)
11
Udite Bhuvanasekhare
ii) Parapata-caranapatalarage
It is clear that the style of this work is different from earlier
Sinhalese Pali writings. The style is artificial and the whole tone
and manner of this work betray the beginning of a tendency to use a
kind of sanskritized Pali. Even the authors of such Pali works as
Dathavamsa and Saddhammopayana make frequent use of such
Pali words which were derived or phonetically transformed from
Sanskrit. They turned into Pali several Sanskrit words they found
either in Amarakosa or in the course of their readings of certain
Sanskrit poetic compositions and used them as Pali words.
13 14 15 16
Use of words like Antarala, avadata, cam¨pati, dhavala,
17 18 19 20 21
N¨tana, nikhila, bhuwana, saroruha, dijapavara and
22
jampati, etc., are the clear evidences of sanskritization of Pali in
latter Pali writings of Srilanka.
23
Uses of such words as samatta (Sanskrit samapta) cittañceti24
25
inseted of cittañaati, kriyacittani instead of kiriya-cittani and
26
vuccare in the Abhidhammatthasangaho also indicate the same
tendency.
12
90