Download Arahant Mahinda- Redactor of Buddhapūjāva in Sinhala Buddhism

Arahant Mahinda- Redactor of Buddhapūjāva in Sinhala Buddhism (With Pali Text,
Translation and Analysis)
Author: Suwands H.J. Sugunasiri
Publisher: Nalanda Publishing Canada (2012)
Introduction:
When Buddhism was introduced to Sri Lanka it is evident that Buddhism had been shaped
considerably by cultural elements of then India. There is internal evidence in the oldest pali
texts for that Hindu religious ideals had made a strong impact on Buddhism which resulted in
Buddhism incorporating rites and ceremonies into Buddhist practice. The particular
Buddhism introduced by arahant Mahinda also does not seem to be a mere path of
wholesome living. Buddhism brought to Sri Lanka by ven Mahinda in the 3rd century B.C.
had a place in it for rites and ceremonies intended for worldly achievements. Chronicles
Mahāvaṃsa and the Dīpavaṃsa implicitly show that arahant Mahinda was much concerned
with introducing Buddhist rites and rituals consistent to indigenous cults of the local people.
Relic worship became popular during the days of arahant Mahind himself. Though it is
difficult to assure that the present rites in their current form were existent during the days of
the introduction of Buddhism it is possible to say the initiation of many rites and rituals took
place during that time. Arahant Mahinda- Redactor of Buddhapūjāva in Sinhala Buddhism is
an attempt to uncover the ambiguous origins of one of the Buddhist rites. The author, after a
critical analysis of the data drawn from the texts, has been brave enough to assure that the
Buddhapūjāva has been coming down to the present day without change in its core structure
and manner of performance. He supports this idea with the thesis that the well pre-planned
structure of Buddhapūjāva cannot be a creation of anyone else except of arahant Mahinda.
As far as the reviewer is aware of, Sugunasiri’s work is the first critical academic inquiry into
the Buddhapūjāva, a major rite practiced daily in Sri Lankan Buddhist monastic contexts or
in lay Buddhist houses. He has taken admirable effort in his work to establish the spiritual
intents of the rite historicity of this ritual and to attribute the authorship of the order and text
of the current practice of Buddhapūjāva to arahant Mahinda. He has achieved his aim in the
research content of the work that consist of two independent essays, the first Buddhapūjāva in
Sinhala Buddhism and the second Arahant Mahinda as Redactor of the Buddhapūjāva
including the pañca-sīla (Five precepts), aṭṭaṅgika-sīla (Eight Precepts) and dasa-sīla (Ten
1
Precepts) in Sinhala Buddhism. The essays are presented in the book as separate parts with
abstracts and table of contents for each except the preface intending for both parts. It is
however clear that he was firm in his thesis that it was arhant Mahinda who prepared a
standard text of Buddhapūjāva as he says “our research has allowed us to now confidently
adduce the authorship to none other than arahant Mahinda (P. 7)” in the first part of the book
itself.
Approaches
Author in his preface to the Book has stated how two chapters came up from his preliminary
earnest need to revitalize the overseas Buddhists, especially the young Buddhist generation in
the rite providing them with handbook of the rite with Pali text and English translation of the
Buddhapūjāva. This project had made him dipping into teaching of the Buddha. The inquiry
into Pali texts had resulted in preparing the first part which author believes “a critical textual
study as well as an anthropological study” (P. xi) of the ritual which is not beyond truth.
The second part according to Sugunasiri was the outgrowth of the knowledge gathered
through critical reading of the relevant literature as well as his understanding of the text of
Buddhapūjāva to be a well-pre-organized structure. His understanding compelled him to
inquire into the possible authorship of the text of the Buddhapūjāva. As the author does not
find historical or textual support to trace the beginnings of the Buddhapūjāva in the days of
arahant Mahinda he attempts to justify his thesis by emphasizing qualifications of arahant
Mahinda to be the author of the Buddhapūjāva text. This unorthodox method is identified by
Prof. Berman in his forward to show affinity to historical critical method in which the authors
of sacred texts are understood to express their own visions depended time and space.
However Berman shows that Sugunasiri’s method notably differs from the fact that he
questions “what kind of evidence is there in the Buddhapūjāva itself that will tell us just what
kind of qualifications we should be looking for in the redactor or redactors? (P. xx) (the
question brings no signs of a particular authority).
Buddhapūjāva: essence and practice
The first Part of the book is totally dedicated to describe fundamentals of the Buddhist rite of
Buddhapūjāva. This is a detailed and comprehensive account of how the Buddhapūjāva is
conducted step by step. It brings us knowledge not only about how the involvement of the
Buddhist monk and lay devotees take place, the meaning and the spiritual underline of
2
stanzas chanted precepts observed and customs performed. This detailed description is
sufficient to flashes signs of the consistency, mental and spiritual settings of many Buddhist
rites. It is admirable that the author often has presented data in an analytical way with
adequate visions and speculations. He himself been Buddhist by birth, it has been no doubt
easy for him to glean all the minuet aspects of the right in practice in his anthropological
observations.
His basic thesis is that irrespective the sectarian and geographical variations of the rite of
Buddhapūjāva, the overall structure of it is universal. He enumerates thirteen items or
segments of Buddhapūjāva in its sequential order in progress. Dealing with the spiritual
context of the Buddhapūjāva the author inquires into the foundations of a rite of this nature.
He points out the faith elements manifested in the discourses of the Pali canon and concludes
sentiment of the Buddhapūjāva “may be traced back to the time of the Buddha” (P. 9). He
also correctly identifies the Mahāparinibbānasutta in the Dīghanikāya of the Pali canon as a
source to show the signs of the origins of Buddhist rites. It is interesting that he show the
emotional attachment or devotion element as a part of wholesome state of mind is evident in
the Buddhist canon. While holding that the rites of this nature could have been intended for
the masses of ordinary follower who did not have interest of liberation from the early days of
Buddhism the Buddhapūjāva might have redacted in consistent to the wishes of those many
and the basic tenets of Buddhism. The author’s idea presented here is, though Buddhism
rejects rites and rituals, simple devotional rituals which are not drawn as ends of spiritual path
have a foundation in Buddhism from the early history.
The description of the practical context of the Buddhapūjāva gives a basic idea of how
Buddhapūjāva is performed and of devotional character of the Buddhapūjāva. The author’s
clarity of knowledge of the rite is evident in many contexts. One example is his explanation
of the varying character of the ritual and the length the rite may take in different ritualistic
contexts such as- funeral rites, sermons and chanting. Another example is the English
translation provided in the form of gist. He has correctly understood the practical purpose and
the spiritual intent of the Pali phrases chanted in the rite. This is reflected in appropriate titles
given for the phrases and segments and in translations to the verses and phrases of homage.
Third example may be author’s identification of the compulsory and optional items of the
rite. He identifies that the segments given such as Protection and blessings (chanting
3
benedictory discourses and transferring blessing), meditation and sermon at the end are
identified as optional.
The most important section of part one is the Buddhapūjāva in Critical Detail in which
phrases, formulas and stanzas of each and every item of the rite in the text is critically
analysed. In this section the author tries to understand the customs of the rite broadly in
relation to their etymological, doctrinal and practical, spiritual and psychological dimensions.
Thus, this section bear significance we have not come across from any former work inquiring
into aspects of rite of Buddhapūjāva. The text he uses a version from Tangalla region in
southern Sri Lanka undoubtedly looks an old one as it consist some phrases in Pali which are
not commonly used nowadays. For instance, instruction before going for refuge in the
process of rite in Pali lingua for the devotees- yamahaṃ vadāmi taṃ vadetha (Repeat what I
say) fall in an old tradition of the rite. Another example is the fact that the monks do not join
with lay devotees in chanting the formula to adore saṅgha due to the possible level confusion
(P. 30) as they themselves belong to that category. In recent history, this avoidance is not
existent. These examples not only signify some idea of the time of the text but also
authenticity of the same provided.
Some of the observations of the author are not only helpful to understand the rite but also
tradition and ideals of it. Elaborating on the second precept of five-fold training principles (P.
37) the author remarks that the it is interesting that the second precept is intended not only to
make abstain from stealing (cora) but for abstaining for what is not given (adinnādāna). The
wordings ‘what is not given’ imply a wide range than stealing. According to the author,
“forcing one’s love up on someone who does not have similar feelings” can also be regarded
as an attempt to get what is not given. On the other hand, by the arrangement of the precept in
this manner by arahant Mahinda it will be easy for the practitioner to have an obvious idea
for not pinning after others property.
Referring to a particular Pali phrase the monks is used to say after administering five
precepts, the author shows it to be a sign of effective communication within the tradition. The
particular phrase is “May you live with diligence, having well taken to the three refuge along
with Five Precepts (Tisaraṇena saddhiṃ pañcasīlaṃ sādhukaṃ surakkhita katvā
appamādena sampādetha) (P. 39). He shows the connection of the phrase mentioned with
another phrases the conducting monk is used to say before administering five precepts“With your permission bhante (venerable sir), I beseech that the discipline of the three
4
refugees along with five precepts be administered to us (okāsa, mayaṃ bhante, tisaraṇena
saddhiṃ pañcasīlaṃ yācāmi anuggahaṃ katvā sīlaṃ detha no bhante) (P. 28). The author
says, the latter phrase might have been said by an educated devotee to request the conducting
monk. Immediately after the second phrase is said the devotees say Thus, the former phrase
said by monk signifies a summary statement at the end of the segment of administering
precepts. The summery statement with its phrase ‘May you live with diligence (appamādena
sampādetha)’ has a relevance to the last word of the Buddha occurring in the
Mahāpariṇibbānasutta as the same phrase is included in the last instruction of the Buddha to
his disciples. It also seems that this statement ironically highlight the importance of going in
refuge and observing five precepts. While offerings to Buddha and adorations are concerned
with merit making the devotee is implicitly reminded of the most important aspect of
progressing religious life. In the Aṅguttaranikāya it is said that eight causes- seeking in
refuge in Buddha, dhamma (doctrine) and saṅgha (desciples) together with training in Five
Precepts as the way to progress the path of both merits (Puñña) and skillfulness (kusala)
bringing happiness and comforts (puññābhisandā kusalābhisandā sukhassāhārā sovaggikā
sukhavipākā…)1
The reviewer cannot miss a touching explanation of Sugunasiri where he elaborates on
Transference of Merits (puññānumodanā) with its actual doctrinal base and spiritual
significance. This segment of the rite comes after varieties of offerings in the rite. At this
level, the devotee has come to a stage in which his emotional feelings are much heightened
by the reflection on Buddha, dhamma and saṅgha, homage and offerings and thereby made
much merits. At this level a devotee not only wishes one’s own comforts and happiness as a
result of the accumulated merits but also the transfers the merits to others for their well-being
and happiness. Sharing merits with others according to Buddhist tradition brings added
merits. This is what we call charity of sharing merits (Pattidāna). The charity is an antidote to
greed. When one wishes others happiness and comforts psychological base of the individual
in that stage is called ‘altruistic joy’ (muditā) which is considered to be one of the four
cardinal virtues in Buddhist tradition. This is, the author says, “psychological gain and a
meritorious advantage” (P. 58).
The language the author uses to describe ritualistic aspect is clear and simple. The way how
the author describes the outward customs of the rite, the symbolical or philosophical
5
underline together with his analysis of the customs is so intelligible. In necessary contexts, he
adds Sinhala equivalents of technical terms and of other important words and phrases to the
English translation. Following quotations drawn from two contexts reflect the nature of
language the author uses. The first quotation is from ‘offering of light’.- “Next is the pahan
pūjāva (padīpa pūjā) ‘The offering of light’. This homage clearly draws upon the Buddh’s
very awakening experience when he proclaimed, ‘a light was born, an eye was born’ (āloko
udapādi, cakkhuṃ udapādi). Light clearly stands for the Buddha himself, the homage line
seeing him as ‘the light of three worlds’ (tilokadīpaṃ) (P. 54). I will also quote his
description of ‘Food Offering’. “The dāna (āhāra pūjā) ‘Food Offering’, made up of
offerings, is, as noted, offered only at the morning and noon services. Thus, while a pre-noon
offering includes both solids and liquids the evening offering is limited to a ‘medicinal drink’
(gilanpasa, P. gilānapaccaya).
The forth and the last sub-chapter of the first part of the book ‘Analytical schema of the
Buddhapūjāva: A symbolical understanding’ is the culmination of the growth of the
discussion of the function and meaning of the rite. Though the sub-chapter is meant for
Symbolical understanding in terms of an analytical schema, it is quite clear that the segment
is rather an attempt to look into the rite from spiritual perspective. Here Sugunasiri points out
four virtues of Buddhism are established by the enthusiastic practitioner of Buddhapūjāva,
they are: devotion (saddhā), self-discipline (sīla), social good (atthacariyā) and liberation
(mokkha). The third is described to be achieve by transferring of merits. Looking into the idea
of the custom of transferring merits, the reviewer suggests that atthacariyā may be translated
rather as ‘acting for others’ wellbeing’ (in more restricted sense) rather than social good
(which is broader). The fourth is understood as the establishment of foundation of the path of
liberation called sīla (self-descipline) as sīla is understood as the foundation of the path of
liberation. The author’s idea here, as it can be understood by looking at the text of the
Buddhapūjāva given in the Appendix I (P. 200 ff), is that these four virtues were the
underline ethical principles of the text of the Buddhapūjāva prepared by arahant Mahinda for
the masses of ordinary devotees.
Above four virtues are symbolised respectively to major portions of a traditional Sri Lankan
stūpa- the Foundation, the relic-chamber, the square and the pinnacle (P. 85). The belief of
the Buddhist of the traditional Sri Lankan stūpa with its gradual reduction of the girth to the
zero at the end of the pinnacle is that it symbolizes the reduction of individual’s impurities in
6
the practice and thereby the culmination of wisdom. Thus the author tries to put the rite of
Buddhapūjāva as equal as any other practice leading to liberation of nibbāna. However, we
do not see a logical base for the four qualities to equate with different features of the stūpa to
symbolize liberation path while other essential more advanced virtues such as concentration
(samādhi) are not found in the authors list. And also we do not see clear reasons why
atthacariyā which is not an essential quality enumerated among the virtues leading to
liberation was added here.
This symbolical representation has caused the author to add a
phrase as ‘Symbolical Understanding’ to the section. This symbolical equation does not
seem to the main discussion of the first part of the book.
The first part provides us with a clear picture of the nature and function of the Buddhist rite
of Buddhapūjāva. With the exception of ‘A Symbolic Representation of the buddhapūjāva
(D. 2) of the last sub-chapter, the rest of the contents of the first part has something to tell us
about this rite. The first part is intended to be complementary to the second part in which the
Buddhapūjāva in its present complicated form together with sīla-trio (three set of preceptspañca-sīla (Five precepts), aṭṭaṅgika-sīla (Eight Precepts) and dasa-sīla (Ten Precepts) is
drawn as a redaction of arahant Mahinda. The reviewer, however, suggest that the second
part by no means progressive to the first part of the book.
Errors and areas of Potential Improvement
Immediately after dealing with first part of the book, the reviewer has moved to discuss errors
and areas of potential improvement without any evaluation of the second part. Therefore,
here we will first deal with the second part and move on to the areas of improvement of the
first part later. The reviewer’s cursory reference to the second part at the end of last segment
of the review will give the overall idea of the second part of the book. .
The second part of the book, as we have understood the content of it, has not produced any
new reliable knowledge of the subject. The author, we may say, has taken a vain effort to
establish that the text of the Buddhapūjāva together with sīla component was a redaction by
arahant Mahinda. The conclusion of the author may be put as- ‘the text of the Buddhapūjāva
“no mere haphazard listing, but well-thought out, sophisticated spiritual tool” (P. xxiii) so it
must be arahant Mahinda in the Buddhist history who is most qualified to produce it. The
whole discussion to build up this thesis suffers a lack of strong evidence. So the author has
applied some ill-suited methodology
with pseudo arguments. This does not mean that
7
arahant Mahinda has not contributed to introduce rites of the nature of Buddhapūjāva. What
it means is that author is trying to prove something ambiguous due to lack of evidence. The
reviewer has below pointed out some of the major issues in the methods and arguments of the
second part.
1. The author is hasty to conclude in the first section of the second part that there was no
in India a ritual of Buddhapūjāva as it exists today in Sri Lanka merely because he
does not find any information in Buddhist canon, art-works or in the records of
Chinese pilgrims.
2. Then he finds no satisfactory information relating to the Buddhapūjāva in Sri Lankan
accounts in the second section but here he firmly believes that the rite has come down
from the days of the arahant Mahinda in its current form. The reviewer finds it
contradictory to believe that the Buddhapūjāva did not existed in India in the current
form as there in no information and it existed in Sri Lanka in its current form while
again there is scarcity of information.
3. The reviewer again does not see any sound logical grounds for the author to hold that
the Buddhapūjāva was prepared and introduced in its present form by venerable
Mahinda merely because the text of the rite looks so well-planned and the speculation
that arahant Mahinda could be the only person to create it. It is no doubt that arahant
Mahinda had enough strengths to inspire Sri Lankan indigenous people for Buddhism.
But we do not find sufficient materials to come to the conclusion that the author here
has come to.
4. The author has not taken any effort to make an observation to identify that the
language of the Pali text of the Buddhapūjāva was as old as the pali in the days of
venerable Mahinda. The reviewer has the doubt whether arahant Mahinda could have
written the Buddhapūjāva-text in Pali while he himself had taught commentaries to
cannon in local language to make Buddhism more intelligible. And also it may be
questioned if we can assure that some of the customs such as worship to statues of the
Buddha (Buddharūpaṃ)
actually had come into being by the time of arahant
Mahinda. There is evidence in the commentaries for that the statue was slowly
accepted credited as an object of worship in Sri Lankan Theravada tradition. There is
a large number of stanzas written to adore relics in Pali which are not oft-used in the
8
rite. The case being such we cannot also assure that the text given by the author to be
the standard text of the Buddhapūjāva that existed for centuries in the history.
With that we come to the first chapter again. There are considerable amount of errors and
shortcomings that should be corrected in a next edition of the book. We will note is the most
obvious ones. It is a wrong view that Sri Lankan monks chose Pali over Sinhala, the local
language under the instructions of venerable Buddhaghosa, the commentator. Accounts of the
Buddhaghosa in the chronicles as well as in the introductory verses in the commentaries show
that how Buddhaghosa respected and paved his obedience to the Theravada tradition in Sri
Lanka. The reviewer has shown two main reasons in a work written in Sinhala why Sri
Lankan monks employed a south Indian monk in the project. One reason is that it could not
be done by Sri Lankan monks as it was not easy to avoid the accusation of being partial. This
was because all the monks in Sri Lanka belonged to one or the other pupilary tradition of
memorizing the texts called (bhāṇakas) whose interpretations in some contexts contradicted
to those of others. So they had difficulty to surpass the interpretations of their own tradition.
The second reason was the method of writing commentaries was excelled in South Indian
centers of Buddhism and the monks in South Indian centres of Buddhism were much aware
of scholastic developments of Buddhist thought. The knowledge of the improvement of
Indian Buddhist thought without doubt was an essential requisite in the project.
The author has not made any inquiry into whether phrases related to personal offerings in
Sinhala (P. 58) might have been included later or they might have been in the then Sinhala
language in the past. Although a definite conclusion is not possible, some reference to such
matters enhances the academic quality of the book.
The etymology given to saddhā (faith) in the book (P. 75) seems haphazard. The division of
the word as as sat+dhā is not convenient to available reliable sources2 that correctly present
the Buddhist meaning of the word. He has not given the source he used to reveal the
etymological meaning of the word. In this kind of controversial contexts it is necessary to
indicate the particular sources used by the author. Buddhism has not used some of the popular
Indian words in their original old Vedic meaning. This understanding is necessary to
understand Buddhist texts.
The author might have been much consistent in giving foot notes and preparing bibliography
to preserve the academic standards of the book. Some of the books in the list of sources seem
9
totally irrelevant to the subject the author is dealing with. He has mixed the methods such as
Harvard Style, Chicago Style and Standard British Style in the lists of references. It is good to
give different types of sources separately.
The sub section ‘Mahinda, Asoka and Adam Smyth on the page number 188 does not bring
any support to the arguments and conclusion of the second part of the book.
There are errors in giving Diacritical Marks to non English words as well. For instance,
ghaṇtā (P. 13) should be put as ghaṇthā, Bo maluwa (P. 14) as Bomaḷuva, Dutugæmunu (P.
15- footnote) as Duṭugämunu.
Other noted errors are- Collectivity (P. 30) should be collectively. The sentence gilanpasa is
the sinhalized gilānapaccaya does not give a clear meaning. It looks correct to put it as
gilanpasa is derived from Pali term gilānapaccaya.
Collection of two articles in the book has prevented the author from looking into
Buddhapūjāva from many different perspectives. It looks like the first part of the book has
lots of potentials to develop it to see into Buddhist rituals from many dimensions. The last
subsections of the second part of the book – ‘Sinhala Buddhapūjāva as the culmination of a
process’ and ‘Some methodological concluding remarks’, could be much supportive for the
author to do this.
Conclusion
The book disserves appreciation as it gives reliable description of a Buddhist rite which may
be useful for any researcher in the subject. Thus the first part of the book is of much
significance. Second part of the book however does not seem properly executed piece of
work. The unorthodox method author applies in the second part has prevented the author
from coming to a strong conclusion with plausible authorship of text of Buddhapūjāva.
Finally, strong thesis is entertained with the support of less strong speculations. As it has
been pointed out above there is much to do in the book to enhance its academic quality and
thereby to label this work as a Sourcebook.
1
The Aṅguttaranikāya (PTS) IV. 245
2
Davids, Rhys T.W. and William Stede, Pali English Dictionary, Orient Book Reprint Cooperation: New
Delhi, 1975. 675 and Nyanaponika, Buddhist Dictionary, Buddhist Publication Society: Kandy, 1980. 189
10