The JapaneseAssociationJapanese Association of Indian and Buddhist Studies
(98) Journal oflndian and Buddhtst Studies Vol, 64, No, 3, March 2016
How Many Dhammapalas Were There?
SHIMIzU Toshifumi
Introduction Dhammapala is known as one of the great commentators of the
Theravada tradition after Buddhaghosa. However, as compared to his significance, the
true facts of DhammapAla's existence remain shrouded in mystery; There are gaps of
several centuries in the period in which scholars date his lifetime, with some suggesting
i) the fifth century and others the tenth century. In addition, while there are fourteen
separate classical texts whose authorship is attributed to Dhammapala, there has long
been a debate as to whether all of these can be acknowledged truly as his works. This
`lwo-person has led some to advocate the theory" that posits the existence of a
Dhammapala I and a Dhammapala II as a hypothetical solution to this problem.2)
Moreoveg in recent years, on the grounds that it was Dhammapala who introduced new doctrinal concepts not prevailing in the Theravada tradition in the Indian subcontinent, it has been pointed out that assuming Dhammapala should refer to
multiple people, one ofthem may have been a foreign entity influencing the Theravada tradition.3)
Thu$, Dhammapala may be seen as a mysterious figure; shedding some light on the
true facts of his existence may broadly clarify not only his individual situation or that
of Theravada Buddhism but also our overall picture of the northern and southern
schools of Buddhism. Howeven despite previous argurnents regarding their necessity
studies that fbcused on Dhammapala as an individual rernain insuthcient. Therefore,
this paper fbcuses on the body of work attributed to Dhammapala to exarnine the order
in which it was established and the problem of whether it can be seen as original work
or forgery;
1. Temporal Relationship of Works First of all, let us consider the order in
which the various works attributed to Dharnmap51a were established. Prior to such a
discussion, let us get an overview of the materials to be handled in this paper. The
-1140-
NII-Electronic Library Service The JapaneseAssociationJapanese Association of Indian and Buddhist Studies
How Many Dhammapalas Were There? (SHiMizu) (99)
authorship of many great classical texts has been attributed to Dhammapala, all of
which may be sorted into the fo11owing eight groups:
(1) Nettipakarapa-a#.hakatha(Netti-a) (2) Abhidhamma-anutika(Abhi-anu-t)
(3) Pramatthadipani(Pd)
(4) Visuddhimagga-mahatrka(vis-t)
(s) Nikdya-tika(Nikdya-t)
(6) Nettipakarana-eika(Netti-;) (7) Ja-taka-;ika (8) Buddhavar!isa-tilca
Among these, multiple classical texts are included in (2) Abhi-anu-t, (3) Pd, and (s)
Nikdya-t. The Abhi-anu-t includes sub-sub-commentaries on the seven books of the
Abhidhamma, Pd includes the seven commentaries on the Udana, Itivuttaka,
Yimdnavatthu, Petavatthu, Theruga-tha, Then-gatha, and Cartyapit,aka, and the Nikjtya-t
includes four books of sub-commentary on the Dighanikdya, Mcoj'himanikdya,
`) SarTryuttanikdya, and Artguttaranikdya.
In addition, since the recensions of (7) Ja-taka-;tka and (s) Buddhavairtsa-tika remain
unpublished, in this paper, I will devote my consideration to the six groups ranging
5) from (1) Netti-a to (6) Netti-t. When we consider the particulars of these materials, the temporal relationship of the first five groups (that is, with the exception of the Netti-t) is found to be as follows: 6)
(1) Netti-a ' (2) Abhi-anu-t . (3) Pd - (4) Vis-t ' (5) Nikdya-t
Since we do not find any citation relationships that would cause any contradiction in
this orde4 there seems to be little possibility of something such as the simultaneous
') compilation of(2) Abhi-anu-t and (3) Pd.
Z. About Two-Person Theory Thus, by confirming the writing order of works
authored by Dhammapala, the two-person theoryS) that has been seen to date as a
leading hypothesis is negated This is because while this theory posits two figures,
namely an earlier Dhammapala I as the author of the commentaries in (1) Netti-a and (3) Pd and a later Dhammapala II as the subsequent author of the sub-commentaries in (2)
-1141-
NII-ElectronicNII-Electionic Library Service The JapaneseAssociationJapanese Association of Indian and Buddhist Studies
(100) How Many DhammapAlas Were There? (SHIMIzu)
Abhi-anu-t, (4) Vis-t, and (5) Nikdya-t,') the fact that (2) was established prior to (3)
implies that this order is incorrect.
iO) In addition, Katsumoto Karen, who has discussed the definition of paramita in the
context of Theravada literature, has recently pointed out that expressions in the
Cartya-pit, aka-atthakatha- resemble those used in Mahayana Buddhist literature and that
based on the fact that exaggerated expressions are used frequently in the Cartyapit.aka-
atthakatha in comparison to the Dfghanikaya-tika-, (1) the two works were written by
different authors, and (2) the author of the Cartyapit,aka-atthakatha may have been a
rnernber of the Abhayagirivihara school or some other Mahayana-esque Theravada
tradition. Howeveg this inference is not valid.
This is because, firstly, the difference in exaggeration appears to derive from the fact that while the Cartyapit.aka-apthakatha explains the practices of the Bodhisatta, the
ii) Dighanikdya-tika- explains the practices of the Savaka. Secondly, the fact that doctrine
from the sources of a northern tradition was introduced to Theravada sources is not
something that is unique to the writings of Dhammapala (or the Cartyapit.aka-
atthakatha-). For example, while Dharnmapala introduced the theory of
sarptatiparirpamavigesa in the Indian subcontinent, this theory had already been
adopted in the Abhidhamma-mtila-tika (Abhi-mtila-t) written by Ananda.i2) The intro-
duction of the theory of samtatiparirpamaviSesa has also been noted for having failed
to destroy the Therav5da doctrinal system of Mah5vihara. The two philosophies
"only comprising the doctrine of Theravada, which claims first and fbremost that that
which is present exists in reality," and the theory of sarptatiparirparnavigesa are able to coexist owing to the depth of their mutual affinity. A similar example has been pointed
out by Hayashi Takatsugu (2011). As he points out that while the concept of sadhararpa-
karman was introduced to Theravada in the Indian subcontinent by Dhammapala, the
concept ofsadhararpa-karman was itself evaluated as something that did not betray the
ideological stance ofTheravada Mahavihara as represented by Buddhaghosa.
3. About Single-Person Theory Thus, even while deeming the doctrine from
northern tradition sources as appropriate, Dhammap51a and other commentators
provided commentary on Theravada literature without damaging the general framework of the MahEvihara doctrinal system. AccordinglM consistency with the
doctrine of nerthern Buddhism does not by itselfallow us to make direct links with the
-1142-
NII-Electronic Library Service The JapaneseAssociationJapanese Association of Indian and Buddhist Studies
How Many Dhammap51as Were There2 (SHiMizu) (101)
ideological characteristics ofthe author in question. From the above, it does not appear that there is any positive evidence on which to posit two separate Dhammapalas. As I mentioned in the previous section, while the two-person theory of Dharnrnapala has been influential in academic circles up to the contemporary period, this does not
mean that there have not been dissenting opinions. A. Pieris (1978), in a systematic
rebuttal to the two-person theor}e argues that the authorship of (1) Netti-a, (3) Pd, (4)
Vis-t, and (s) Nikdya-; can be attributed to a single Dhammapala. Although Pieris's claim
in this regard has not carried much weight among academics, recent scholarship has
reported strong ideological aMnities within the body of work attributed to
Dhammapila; furthermore, when it became clear that (2) Abhi-anu-t, which had been
thought to have been established later was in fact completed prior to (3) Pd, arguments
began to emerge that the two-person theory needs to be re-examined. Thus, in
response, in this paper, I would like to present a perspective on re-evaluating the one- person theory by pointing out an ideological characteristic that appears within the body of work attributed to Dhammapala; that is, high authority is given to the Netti. Next, let us consider Dhammapala's relationship to the Netti. The Netti iJs a classical text that describes a method for interpreting scriptures, and it is believed to be written
by KaccAna, a direct disciple of Buddha. In the Theravada tradition, Dhammapala has
traditionally been regarded as the author of a commentary (the Netti-a) and a sub-
commentary (Netti-t) in the Netti. Of the two, the latter is not generally accepted as an
original work by Dhammapala, since it would be exceptional fbr a Theravada this commentator to provide further commentary on ene of his own texts. Therefore, in paper, on the provisional basis of this hypothesis, I shall re-examine the one-person
theory ofDhammap51a through a consideration of the commentary) Netti-a. To begin with, when clarifying the positioning of the Netti-a within Dhammapala's oeuvre, the work of L, de Silva provides a key; In the introduction to her recension of
"the the Dighanikdya-lika (London: PTS, 197o, vol. I, p. xliii.s-23), on the grounds that
method of commenting on the Brahmoja-lasutta accords exactly with that of the Netti,"
de Silva concludes that the author of the Netti-a and the author of the Di-ghanikdya-tika
were the sarne person. This is an important indication. In this papeqIhave already laid
out the order in which the body of work attributed to Dhammapala was established, so
the attribution of authorship of the first (Netti-a) and the last (Dighanikdya-tika-) works to
-1143-
NII-Electronic Library Service The JapaneseAssociationJapanese Association of Indian and Buddhist Studies
(102) HowManyDhammapalasWereThere? (SHiMizu)
the same person strongly suggests the possibility that all of these works can be
attributed to Dhammapala (although, de Silva herself excludes Abhi-anu-t from the
original works of Dhammapal a).
Nevertheless, in order to substantiate de Silva's argument, we also need to prove that
the method of scriptural interpretatjon used for the Netti was unique to Dhammapala
alone. Fer instance, if we prove that the method of scriptural interpretation used fbr
the Netti was a common practice even befbre it was introduced by Dhammapala, then de
Silva's argument would no longer be valid. While de Silva does not say anything on this
point, when we compare works by Dhammapala to those by his predecessors
Buddhaghosa and Ananda, the tendency to emphasize the Netti is observed fbr
Dhammapala alone. On this basis, in this paper, I would like to rnake the fo11owing three pomts:
I. While references to the Netti in works by Buddhaghosa and Ananda are extremely '3) rare, the Netti is cited frequently in works by Dhammapala. '4) II. In the Vis-; (VRI, vol. I, p. 257.4-5) and Mcto'himanikdya-pika (VRI, vol. I, p. 71.11-12)
attributed to DhammapAla, there are several instances where the Netti is referred to as a pali, This terminology is specific to works by Dhammapala and is not found elsewhere. i5)
"pali" III. In this sense, refers to the text referenced by a commentary and especially after the time of Buddhaghosa, it has been primarily pointed as a term in canonicai literature acknowledged within the tipitaka.i6) HoweveL Buddhaghosa treats the Netti as non-canonical, and does not include it in the tipitaka. under such circumstances, the fact that Dhammapala calls the Netti a pAli and
accords it a position of high authority can be evaluated as an ideological characteristic
of Dhammapala alone. In addition to this, we have confirmed (a) the validity of de
Silva's argument that the author of the Netti-a and the author of the Dighanikdya-tika
were the same and (b) that a stance emphasizing the Netti appears throughout the bocly
of works attributed to Dhamrnapala. These facts strongly indicate that the body of
works attributed to Dhammapala may be attributed to a single person. Conclusion Therefore, in this papeg considering the above information,Ihave (a)
established the temporal relationship of the bocly of works associated with
Dhammapala as (1) Netti-a . (2) Abhi-anu-t . (3) Pd . (4) Vis-t ' (5) Nikdya-t, and (b)
-1144-
NII-Electronic Library Service The JapaneseAssociationJapanese Association of Indian and Buddhist Studies
How Many DhammapAlas Were There? (5HIMIzu) (103)
"a presented evidence that all of these works can be attributed to single Dhammapala."
Notes1) Masefield (1994-1995, vol. [, p. xiii,5-21; 2008-2009, vo]. I, p, xiii.16-22); Norman (1983, p. 149.6- 14), 2) Warder (2000, p. 199.8-9, p. 203.4-22); Cousins (1972, p, 162); Norman (1983, p. 137.8-13, p. 149.6-14). 3) Katsurnoto (2006). 4) The sub-commentary on the Ariguttarzinikdya has been largely dispersed, and only portions remain extant. Cf Pecenko (2012), 5) Previous studies only contain a partial order of establishment. C£ Cousins (1972, p. 161,34-47); Cha (2001, p. 15.14-23). 6) (4) - (5): Dighanikdya-tika (vol. I, p. 327,6-7, vol. I, p. 349.19-26, voL I, pp. 481.30- 482.1); MqD'himanikdya-tika (VRI, vol. I, p. 201.14-18); SaiTiyuttanikdya-tikd (VRI, vol. III, p. 244.7-8); Ahguttaranikdya-tika (p. 82,12-13, p. 114,13-14, p. 366.1, p. 372.19-20). (3) - (4)(5): Dighanikdya-tika- (vol. III, p. 215.13-14, vol, III, p. 71.9-10); Mqi)"himanikdya-tika- (VRI, vol. II, p. 211.20-21, voL III, p. 48.18-19, voL II, p. 28.7-8, vol. [I, p. 79, vol. IVI p. 86,2-4); SaT?D,uttanikdya-ttka (VRI, vol. II, p. 52.1-2); Afiguttaranikdya-tika (p. 184,22-23, p. 223.2-4, p. 231.16-18); Vis-t (VRI, vol. I, p. 369.2-3), (2) . (3): Udana-a#hakatha (p. 94.7-9). (1) - (2)(3)(4)(s): Vibhahga-anutika (VRI, p. 183.7); Theragathd- atl.;hakatha-' (vol. III, p. 21.15-17); Vis-; (VRI, vol, I, p. 331.23-24); Saqtyuttanikdya-tika (VRI, vol. III, p. 244.7-8), 7) Cha (2001, p, 15 note 53) indicates the possibility that the word saiTtyuttasuttatrka in the Vis-t refers to the Sarryuttanikdya-rika and that the two texts were compiled at the same
'`a time. Howeve4 this word is likely used in the sense of sub-commentary on a related
scripture." 8) See note 2. 9) Many previous studies do not accept the Netti-I as a true work by Dhammapala, Cf Hinttber (1996, g363). 10) Katsumoto (2006, pp. 174-192). 11) Cartyapit,aka-att.hakatha (pp. 313.35-314.3); Dighanikayatrka (p, 114.14-16). 12) Shimizu (2014). 13) Mca)'himanikdya-acrhakatha (vol. I, p. 31.7); Vibhafiga-malatika (p. 144,22), 14) Vis-F (VRI, vol. I, p, 257A-5); Dhammasarigani-anutika (VRI, p. 22.9-10); Vibhafiga-anutfka (VRI, p. 88,17-18); Udana-apt, hakatha (pp. 326,25-327.2, p. 373.23-24); Dighanikltya-tfka (vol. II, p. 366,24-25); Mqi)'himanikdya-tika (VRI, voL I, p. 71.11-12, vol. I, p. 304.16). 15) It is exceptional for the Netti, which should not be included in the Tipit. aka, to be referred to as a pa!i. Norman (1997, p, 134.1-4) "Nettipali" and Collins (lggO, p. 108 note 11) mention the importance of the word fbund in the Netti-t. we will note that their indication is based on the description ofthe Netti-F presented in the recension of the Netti prepared by Hardy (lgo2, p, xi note 1). However, it must also be remembered that the veracity of the Netti-t as a true work of Dhammapala is highly suspect. 16) Collins
(1990); Baba (2008, p. 219.7-15).
Abbreviations
PTS Pali Text Society Unless otherwise noted, all texts are based on the editions by the PTS.
VRI Vipassana Research Institute. Chatt.ha Sathgayana Tipitaka, based on Dhammagiri-Pali-
ganthamala edition.
Bibliography
Baba Norihisa re a £ fi , 2oos. J6zabu Bukkyj no sh iso- ke isei .tl pt gB tLh ty O .U re pt nt [The
-1145-
NII-Electronic Library Service The JapaneseAssociationJapanese Association of Indian and Buddhist Studies
(104) HowManyDhammapalasWereThere? (SHIMIzu)
developrnent of Theravada Buddhist philosophy], Tokyo: Shurijasha.
'A Cha, Myang-Hee. 2001. Study on the ParamatthamafljUsa," PhD diss., University of Pune.
"On Collins, Steven. 1990. the Very Idea ofthe Pali Canon."Joumal ofthe Pali imt Society 15: 89-126.
"Dhammapala Cousins, Lance Selwyn. 1972. and the TTka Literature," Religion 2 (1): 159-165,
Hardy; Edmund, lg02. The Netti-pakararpa. London: PTS.
`16zabu Hayashi Takatsugu )F+i vema, 2oll. no gU-g6 (sadhararpa-kamma) ni tsuite" -lt za ge (1) iltik v( (sadhara4a-kamma) e:OV} [Sadharana-karnma in Theravada Buddhism after Dhammapala]. IBK 60 (1): 221-228.
HinUbe4 Oskar von. Igg6. A Handbook ofPali Literature. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
"Cariyapitakatthakatha Katsumoto Karen sw J4S gss . 2oo6. to BodhisattvabhUrni" Cariyapitakatt, ha- katha 8 Bodhisattvabhami [Cariyapitakatthakatha and Bodhisattvabhami]. Bukky6 kenkyti Vs Xut fi [Buddhist studies] 34: 174-192. Masefield, Peter. 1994-1995. The Udana Commentarl>r (Paramatthadipani nama UdanaFFhakathdi. 2 vols, Oxford:PTS.
. 2008-20og. The Commentary on the Itivuttaka: The Itivuttaka-atthakatha- (Paramatthadi-pani ID qf Dhammapala, 2 vols. Oxfbrd: PTS.
Norman, Kenneth RoyL 1997, A Philological Approach to Buddhism, London: School of Orientai and
African Studies (University ofLondon).
Pecenko, Primoz. 2012. Ariguttaranikdyapurapagrka: Catu ttha- LfnatthapakdsinL Bristol: PTS.
"The Pieris, Aloysius. 1978, Colophen to the Paramatthamafijusa and the Discussion on the Date of Acariya Dhammapala." In Buddhism in Ccylon and Studies on Religious Syncretism in Buddhist Countries, ed. HeinzBechert, 61-77. G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. "PariJ6zabu Shimizu Toshifumi ifiZ}CueM. 2014, ni okeru sOzoku tenpen shabetsu" 7 £ L- 'J .Ezag3
C:tsVJ6NMtzRESU [The theory of sarptatiparinamaviSesa in Theravada Budclhism]. Bukkyo- shigaku kenkyti VL ty Sl2{I}Eblfi Dournal ofthe history ofBuddhism] 57 (1): 1-19. Warde4 Antheny KennedJL 2ooo. Indian Buddhism. 3rd revised edition. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
First published 1970,
(This work was supported byJSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 15Kl6622.)
Keywords CommentaryTheravada,Nettipakarapa
(Research Fellow, Research Institute ofBukkyo University)
-1146-
NII-ElectronicNII-Electionic LibraryLibiaiy Service