Vol.64 , No.3(2016)193清水 俊史「上座部註釈家ダンマパーラを巡る「二人説」と「一人説」の是非」

NII-Electronic Library Service

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

the

fifth

century i)_{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

has

led

some

to

advocate

the

`lwo-person

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

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

from

(1)

Netti-a

to

(6)

Netti-t.

When

we consider

the

_particulars

of

these

materials, 5)

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)

NII-Electronic Library Service

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.

In

addition,

Katsumoto

Karen,

iO)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

Dighanikdya-tika-

explains

the

_practices

of

the

Savaka.

ii)

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

comprising

the

doctrine

of

Theravada,

which claims

first

and

fbremost

that

"only

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

asrepresented

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-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

ofwork attributed

to

Dhammapala;

that

is,

high

authority

is

given

to

the

Netti.

Next,

let

us consider

Dhammapala's

relationship

to

the

Netti.

The

Netti

iJsa 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

commentator

to

_provide

further

commentary on ene of

his

own

texts.

Therefore,

in

this

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

Dighanikdya-lika

(London:

PTS,

197o,

vol.

I,

p.

xliii.s-23), on

the

_grounds

that

"the

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

NII-Electronic Library Service

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

rare, '3)

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)

III.

In

this

sense, "pali" refers

to

the

text

referenced

by

acommentary 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

astance 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-How Many

DhammapAlas

Were

There?

(5HIMIzu)

(103)

presented

evidence

that

allof

these

works can

be

attributed

to

"a 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,

15note 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

time.

Howeve4 this word

is

likely

used

in

the

sense of '`a

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)

and

Collins

(lggO,

_p.

108

note

11)

mention

the

importance

of

the

word "Nettipali"

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

asa

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

ganthamala

edition.

Bibliography

NII-Electronic Library Service

developrnent

of Theravada

Buddhist

_philosophy],

Tokyo:

Shurijasha.

Cha,

Myang-Hee. 2001.'A

Study on the ParamatthamafljUsa,"

PhD

diss.,

University of Pune.

Collins,

Steven.

1990.

"On

the

Very

Idea

ofthe

Pali

Canon."Joumal

ofthe

Pali

imt

Society

15:89-126.

Cousins,

Lance

Selwyn.

1972.

"Dhammapala

and

the

TTka

Literature,"

Religion

2

(1):

159-165,

Hardy;

Edmund,

lg02.The Netti-pakararpa.

London:

PTS.

Hayashi

Takatsugu

)F+i

vema,

_2oll. `16zabu

no

_gU-g6

(sadhararpa-kamma)

ni tsuite"

-lt

za

ge

(1)

_iltik

(sadhara4a-kamma)

e:OV}

v(

[Sadharana-karnma

in

Theravada

Buddhism

after

Dhammapala].

IBK

60

(1):

221-228.

HinUbe4

Oskar

von. Igg6.

A

Handbook

ofPali

Literature.

Berlin:

Walter

de

Gruyter.

Katsumoto

Karen

sw

J4S

gss

_.

_2oo6. "Cariyapitakatthakatha

to

BodhisattvabhUrni"

Cariyapitakatt,

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 theItivuttaka: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.

Pieris,

Aloysius.

1978,"The

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.

Shimizu

Toshifumi

ifiZ}CueM.

2014,

"PariJ6zabu

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

InstituteofBukkyo University)