Mahanama in the Pali Literature

·期刊原文
Mahanama in the Pali Literature

Siddhartha, R.
The Indian Historical Quarterly
8:3
1932.09
pp.462--465

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

p.462

Mahanama in the Pali Literature

There are four persons by the name of Mahanama in
the Pali literature of whom one is a king; the second
is said to be the resident monk of the Dighasanda
monastery at Anuradhapura, to whom king Moggallana
(497-515 A.C.) offered a monastery called Pabbata
Vihara built by him (Mahavamsa, ch. 39. v. 42); the
third is mentioned in the concluding lines of the
commentary on the Patisambhidamagga as the author of
that work who lived in the reign of Kumara Dhatusena,
son of king Moggallana (515-524 A.C.); and the fourth
occurs in the concluding passage of the commentary on
the Mahavamsa as the author of the original work. The
last two of these four Mahanamas were undoubtedly
great Pali scholars. Let us first see who were the
three Mahanama Theras.

The commentator of the Patisambhidamagga says
that he finished his work in the third year after the
death of king Moggallana. So he must have lived at
the time of king Moggallana and his son Kumara
Dhatusena. His reference to the dead king Moggallana
but not to the reigning king Kumara Dhatusena
indicates his close association with the former. So
it seems that he was the Thera Mahanama to whom king
Moggallana presented a monastery called the Pabbata
Vihara. Again, as he was a resident of the Dighasanda
monastery he might have also been the author of the
Mahavamsa as its commentator attributes that work
to Mahanama Thera of the Dighasanda monastery. It is,
however, difficult to identify these two theras
because the thera Mahanama to whom the Pabbata
monastery was presented was living at the Dighasanda
monastery at the time when that presentation was
made, and afterwards he must have been living at the
new monastery built by the king. But the Thera
Mahanama who wrote the commentary on the
Patisambhidamagga lived, according to his own words,
in a monastery known as the Uttaramanti Parivena. It
is probable that the thera Mahanama who resided at one
time at the Dighasanda monastery left it again for
the Uttaramanti Parivena where he wrote the
commentary on the Patisambhidamagga It may also
be that these two names, Dighasanda Parivena and
Uttaramanti Parivena

p.463

referred to one and the same monastery where
Mahanama thera lived both during the life-time and
after the death of king Moggallana. The commentator
of the Mahavamsa says that Dighasanda was a nick-
name of a certain general of King Devanampiya Tissa
and that he built the monastery known after his name.

In the Culavamsa (ch. 38, v. 16-17) it is stated
that king Dhatusena in his boyhood lived as a novice
under a thera who was his mother's brother and who
was residing at the Dighasanda monastery. Here the
name of the thera is not given. Is he the thera
Mahanama to whom king Moggallana made a gift of the
Pabbata Vihara, and is he also the author of the
Mahavamsa?

According to a statement in the Culavamsa (ch.
38, v. 59) it seems that king Dhatusena was a lover
of history and he was instrumental for the
compilation of the Mahavamsa. The statement referred
to is that king Dbatusena at the end of an
anniversary celebration held in honour of the great
Mahinda thera, who introduced Buddhism into Ceylon,
ordered the promulgation of the chronicle of Ceylon
throughout the Island, and for that purpose he gave
a thousand coins. This indicates that a new work had
come into existence which was not yet become
popular, and this must have been the composition of
Mahanama of the Dighasanda Parivena. All these facts
go to show that the thera Mahanama of the Dighasanda
monastery who wrote the Mahavamsa and the thera
Mahanma of the Dighasanda monastery who was the
favourite monk of king Moggallana, son of king
Dhatusena, and the resident thera of the Dighasanda
monastery were one and the same person. King
Dhatusena is said to have come to the throne in 1006
B.E. (i.e. 463 A.D.) and king Moggallana died in 1060
B.E. (i.e. 517 A.D.). Now from the accession of king
Dhatusena to the death of king Moggallana there were
only 54 years. King Dhatusena did not die an old man.
He met with an unnatural death at the hands of his
eldest son, king Kassapa of Sigiriya fame. So when
Dhatusena came to the throne he could not have bean
an old man. Then at the time of king Moggallana's
death the age of Mahanama there could be between 79
and 89.(1)

-----------------------
1 I am, however, not inclined to accept that the
thera Mahanama who wrote

p.464

The view that the uncle of King Dhatusena was the
author of the Mahavamsa could be proved further by
the following fact:
The Mahavamsa stops abruptly in the middle of the
37th chapter without concluding it in the usual may
with a verse in a different metre. This indicates
that the author either could not finish his work
owing to some unexpected trouble or died before he
could complete it. Or, it might have been that the
oriainal work in Sinhalese ended there and he did
not add anything to it.He only put into Pali verse
what he found in the original Sinhalese version and
stopped there.

The first two arguments cannot be the reasons for
this abrupt ending because he had only one verse to
compose to conclude it in the usual way, and this he
could have done very easily. If the last one was the
actual reason, it is difficult to understand why he
did not finish it in the usual way. Its
commentator also has not given any reason for this
abrupt ending. That the old Sinhalese Mahavamsa ended
just at the point where the Pali Mahavamsa stops is
proved by the earlier Pali work, I mean, the
Dipavamsa. It also stops exactly at the same place.
His abrupt ending, I think, is due to the fact that
Mahanama thera translated the Sinhalese Mahavamsa
into Pali but as he wanted to write the chronicle
further and bring the history up to his time he did
not conclude it in the usual way. But before he could
do so his benefactor king Dhatusena was put to death
by his own son, Kassapa, and consequently there was
much trouble in the country and the bhikkhus could
not fufil his desire and the work remained unfinish-
ed till thera Dhammakitti took up the work after
about seven centuries. This shows very clearly that
king Dhatusena was instrumental for the writing of
the Mahavamsa, and the chronicle of Ceylon which he
ordered for promulgation was none but this work. Of
course, the word used for the work in narration is
Dipavamsa. But I do not think that it was used to
indicate the work now known by that name. It was not
used here as the special title of a particular book,
but as denoting "the Vamsa of the Dipa," i.e. the
chronicle of the Island. It

-----------------------
the commentary on the Patisambhidamagga was the
same person as the author of the Pali Mahavamsa
because a work of the former kind cannot be
expected from such an old person, however clever
he might have been.

p.465

could not be that king Dhatusena wanted to
propagate that work called the Dipavamsa because it
was defective and the defects were wellknown. And
moreover it was already popular inspite of its
defects. So it is certain that the chronicle which
king Dhatusena wanted to promulgate was not the work
which we now call Dipavamsa. Therefore the Dipavamsa,
that is the chronicle of the island, which he wanted
to propagate was either the Sinhalese Mahavamsa
preserved in the Mahavihara or the new work in Pall
composed by Mahanama thera. But, as that Sinahlese
work was also already popular surely it must have
been this new work that he wanted to propagate.

It should be noted here that the word Mahavamsa
was also not the name given to the book written by
Mahanama thera. It was always referred to by its
commentator as the Padyapadoruvamsa. This term mean
the Mahavamsa in verse (Padyapada = metrical lines
and uruvamsa = mahavamsa). This name shows also the
nature of the book. It is Mahavamsa, but unlike the
then existing Mahavamsa it is in metrical form. This
shows again that the history of Ceylon that existed
in prose was known as the Mahavamsa and the new work
composed in Pali was given the name of
Padyapadoruvamsa just to distinguish it from the
first one. I have found that the commentator has used
this name in no less than 12 placea but never the
name Mahavamsa.

It is noteworthy here that the author of the Pali
Mahavamsa in his opening verse uses the term
Mahavamsa. But the commentator says that the author
referred by that word to the then existing Sinhalese
Mahavamsa and not to the one composed in Pali.

R. SIDDHARTHA