RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THERAVADA - II
Though it is said that Ven. Buddhaghosha Thera translated the Buddhist texts that were available in Sinhala to Pali no valid reason is given for the Thera to undertake this monumental work. Mahavansa only mentions that when Ven. Buddhaghosha Thera was contemplating on compiling the Pirith Atuvava Ven. Revatha Thera had advised Buddhaghosha Thera to go to Sri Lanka where the Sinhala Atuva existed and translate the Atuvas into Magadhi which later came to be known as Pali or the language of the texts. Now the question is why Buddhaghosha Thera who was interested in compiling a Pirith Atuvava should be advised to translate the Atuvas in Sinhala to Magadhi. If Buddhaghosha Thera was requested to study the Atuvas available in Sinhala then there was a reason for such action. Why should one translate the Atuvas into Magadhi and not to Thelingu, the language of Andra Pradesh at that, when what is needed is only knowledge of what is available in Sinhala? In any event how does one explain the translation work undertaken by Ven. Buddhadatta Thera before Buddhaghosha Thera?
As there are no consistent answers to such questions many Sinhala intellectuals of the recent past have suspected some conspiracy on the part of Buddhaghosha Thera, some even going to the extent of claiming that Thera was a "C I A" agent of the past. It is not difficult to understand why Mahavansa did not give a coherent account of this event as the authour himself belonging to the Mahavira, did not want to divulge the reason for translating the Atuvas into Magadhi or Pali. The reason we attribute is the decline of Theravada in Andra Pradesh and the imminent danger that Theravada was facing in the region now called South Asia as a whole. The challenge by Madhyamikavada was too much for Theravada on a theoretical front and without meeting such challenge Theravadins in Andra Pradesh and Sri Lanka would have decided that the best course of action under such circumstances was to protect Theravada by preserving the texts as they were at that time.
However the question as to why translate the texts into Magadhi remains to be answered. One of my former students in the Faculty of Science at the University of Colombo, now wasting his time in the Central Bank for want of an academic job has come up with a reasonable answer to that question. It is he who suggested that the texts were translated into Magadhi to prevent any "corruption" by the local users. If the texts were in Sinhala then at least the "educated" Sinhalas would have given different interpretations and "pure" Theravada would have been lost as a result. The Madhyamikavada and other "vadas" and pravadas (theories) would have crept into Theravada and the Theravadins at that time took the decision to translate and keep them "untouched" by enthusiastic interpreters and others.
This explanation, in my opinion, also answers why the Theravadins at Mahavihara and Andra Pradesh decided on Magadhi rather than any other language spoken in what is now called South Asia. Magadhi (Prakrit) may or may not have been the language mostly used by Buddha but it is possible that at that time either that language was spoken only by a few or only a few who spoke Magadhi were (Theravada) Buddhists. Thus the possibility of Theravada being "corrupted" by Magadhi speaking Theravada Buddhists would have been very low. In any event what is important is that the translation of the Theravada Buddhist texts into Magadhi would not have been a decision taken by Buddhaghosha Thera or by Revatha Thera but a collective decision by the Theravada Bhikkus in Anuradhapura and Andra Pradesh.
Together with the translations the concept that emerged was the protection of Theravada Buddhism. In fact the texts would have been translated into Magadhi, in order to protect Theravada. The protection of Theravada was the main premise and translation of Buddhist texts into Magadhi would have followed from that. Thus the Sinhala Buddhists were committed to protect Theravada, which meant the preservation of Theravada knowledge as it was found towards the fifth century.
Preservation of knowledge implies no creation of knowledge, and since about the fifth century, the Sinhala Buddhists who had created knowledge in the previous centuries appear to have stopped creating knowledge. This does not mean that no books were written after the fifth century in Sinhala, but only implies that those works amounted to either translations or absorptions into Sinhala culture from other languages or cultures. If one goes through the books written in Sinhala after about the fifth century this would become clear, even the Sandesha kavyas being adaptation of a particular form from the Bharath culture.
No atuvas of any significance have been written after about the fifth century. As atuvas are nothing but new interpretations or new knowledge, writing new atuvas would have gone against the spirit of protecting Theravada Buddhism. The Sinhala Buddhists have taken pride in what they did to preserve Theravada as it was found in the fifth century and it would have been recognized as the responsibility of Sinhala Buddhists to protect Theravada. This tradition continues even up to today and it is not only the western colonialism that has given rise to the present pathetic situation where the so called intellectuals are happy with mundane studies such as what so and so has said or the state income from a certain plantation in a given period.
It is true that with the award of so called research degrees even in the west most people are engaged in such studies. However, in the west at least a few are consciously engaged in creating knowledge whereas the others study the works of these creators for their research degrees. In Sri Lanka and other non European countries there is another factor that would not allow the "intellectuals" to create knowledge. The western knowledge is created in a certain chinthanaya, which is alien to us and we have two options with respect to that impediment. Either we have to be immersed in the Chinthanaya of the west, which I call the Greek Judaic Christian Chinthanaya, or create knowledge in our own Chinthanaya.
I have expressed certain views in this article, and from my experience I would expect some of the "intellectuals" to ask me to quote from texts to substantiate my position on protection of Theravada Buddhism in Sri Lanka and on translation of Theravada texts into Magadhi. Of course I cannot quote from books as no book will give the position enumerated in the article. I have postulated certain views, which in my opinion answers certain questions I have raised. If these postulates are consistent and explain certain phenomena, then I am happy.
Non creation of knowledge by non westerners is a topic I have discussed elsewhere, and the Chinthanaya plays a big role here. However, that is a post fifteenth century phenomenon and we cannot rely either on that or western colonialism to explain why no new knowledge had been created by the Sinhala Buddhists after about the fifth century. If the Sinhala people had not created new knowledge prior to that then needless to say that this particular question does not arise. However, the Sinhala people had created knowledge and we had to explain why it came to a "standstill" after about the fifth century.
The responsibility to protect Theravada has done so much good to us and the world in general. It is not my intention to blame those who would have taken that decision around fifth century. If not for that decision the world would have probably lost Theravada culture if not the Theravada Buddhism as well. Also the Sinhalas most probably would have ended up as Madhyamikas first and then Hindus or Muslims. However, it is also seen that this decision has prevented us from creating new knowledge and finally leading to the creation of a set of imitators (anukarakas) in the twentieth century of course with the blessings of the western powers.
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>