Betrayers of Buddhism – A response

Dr. Geewananda Gunawardena (GG) in his letter titled “Buddhagosa was no betrayer” (The Island – 19.06.2023), which probably was in response to my letter “Arahath Mahinda’s mission and Ven. Buddhagosa’s betrayal” (The Island – 06.06.2023) which he has quoted, argues that Buddhism, in any case, would have undergone change, as it had, over the years, regardless of any intervention by Buddhagosa. GG may be correct in his assumption for there were several other factors that influenced the evolution of Buddhism wherever it was practised.

However, the fact remains that the main factor that caused a radical change in Buddhism, in Sri Lanka, was Buddhagosa. It was the latter, via his translations of the Sinhalese Commentaries to the Tripitaka, who transformed the Buddha from the status of a normal human being to a larger-than-life, super-human with transcendental features. It was Buddhagosa who introduced dividend carrying rituals, converted Buddhist gods into gods with powers to protect people and made stupas and bodhi tree objects of veneration and worship with merit for the practitioner (see “Beyond ritualistic realm” MMJ Marasinghe, 2018). There is no evidence that these features were known or practised in Sri Lanka before the advent of Ven. Buddhagosa. On the other hand, there is evidence that transcendentalism was discarded and other impurities removed at the Third Council (Dhammasangayana) before Buddhism was brought to Sri Lanka. Isn’t this a gross betrayal of Buddha and his teachings as expounded in the four major Nikayas in the Sutta Pitaka; Diga, Majjima, Samyutta and Anguttara. These were the only discourses that were assigned to groups of monks to be preserved by the oral tradition at the First Dhammasangayana held within three months of Buddha’s “parinirvana” and therefore these may correspond as close as possible to Buddha’s word. Rituals are not mentioned in these discourses, nor stupas, bodhi trees or any other objects of worship, nor gods with powers over humans and nor transcendentalism of any significance.

If these discourses are accepted as the base level which represents Buddha’s position with regard the human predicament, radical deviations that may be considered betrayals have happened all along the history of Buddhism, starting with the rupture at the Second Dhammasangayana and finally ending up with Mahayana. These are labelled as betrayals for they attempted to radically change the basic doctrines preached by Buddha, such as No-self, Four Noble Truths, Nibbana, Arahath, etc. The mother of all betrayals could be the birth of Tantrayana which recommends sexual intercourse as a means of expediting the path to Nirvana! Tantrayana also made its appearance in Sri Lanka in the 7th CE. Such happenings may be considered as normal phenomena given the complexity of human nature, but they could be labelled as betrayals by those who realise the acute need for the invaluable original.

A translator of any work must adhere to the thematic contents of the original and be honest and trustworthy in the project undertaken. Ven. Buddhagosa’s translations are full of doctrinal errors, deviations from the original, and unnecessary stories and anecdotes designed to elevate the Buddha to a transcendental realm, all of which are unbecoming of a genuine translator. His mission obviously was not to translate the Sinhalese Commentaries into Pali, for which there was no need as the language in use was Sinhalese, but to introduce transcendental features and all its ills like rituals into Theravada Buddhism that was established in Sri Lanka by Arahath Mahinda. According to Kalupahana (2008), Buddhaghosa was influenced by Mahayana-thought, subtly mixed with Theravada orthodoxy to introduce new ideas. Kalupahana is of the view that it eventually led to the flowering of metaphysical tendencies, in contrast to the original stress on anattāin early Buddhism.

As GG postulates, Theravada in Sri Lanka would have undergone change and acquired extraneous elements not found in Early Buddhism, even without the intervention by Buddhagosa. For instance, Mahayana was destined to enter Sri Lanka and make an indelible imprint on the religious milieu of the country. Mahayana which had spread to South India and had been the predominant religion by the 5th Century CE had made a special effort to make an entry into Sri Lanka. A special discourse called “Lankavatara suthra” (Entry into Lanka) was composed designed to denigrate Theravada and monks in Sri Lanka. In this project there was political deceit and treachery involving the Sri Lankan King Mahasen and Mahavihara got destroyed. Later Mahavihara was restored but the seeds of Mahayana remained as Vaitulyavada at Abhayagiri vihara.

Just after these changes took place Ven. Buddhagosa, who had spent some time in South India where Mahayana was a strong presence, had arrived in Sri Lanka and gained a foothold at Mahavihara and completed his task of introducing elements of transcendentalism in relation to Buddha, rituals which may be considered as a precursor of “Bhakthi Marga” of Mahayana and a new concept of god which was a forerunner of another Mahayana concept. Bodhisatta. Eventually Mahayana was the predominant religion in Sri Lanka from the 5th CE to the 10th CE. Though it declined some of its important tenets such as “Bakthi Marga”, Bodhisatta, Hindu Gods, etc., have remained, thanks to the efforts of Ven. Buddhagosa.

The important question here is whether these changes, though perhaps inevitable as GG suggests, are desirable and good for the people. Buddha’s mission was to find an answer to human suffering, he was not satisfied with the Vedic interpretation of the human condition and the remedies it offered. Basically, he was an empiricist and wanted empirical evidence before accepting any postulate. He could see that there was no external agent that could be one’s solace. One must find freedom by one’s own effort. There was no place for rituals, acquiring and transfer of merit, giving of alms expecting rewards in the next birth, and gods who protect people. Sámaññaphala Sutta of the Dìgha Nikáya declares all blessing rites and rituals as animal sciences (tiraccháanavijjá). Such was the attitude of Buddha towards rituals. To attempt to introduce something that he abhorred is a betrayal indeed.

The path Buddha recommended was “Ññana Marga” (Path of Wisdom) and he never spoke about a “Bhakthi Marga” (Path of Faith). “Bhakthi Marga” is mentioned in “Bhagavath Gita” an important text in Hinduism and it was borrowed by Mahayana as it had done with several other Mahayana concepts. Theravada had borrowed it from Mahayana and Buddhagosa had paved the way for it. Thus we see Sri Lankans including the clergy practising “Bhakthi Marga” expecting the merit so acquired to take them to enlightenment. What is worse is we are told that one cannot reach enlightenment unless sufficient merit is acquired in eons of births in the samsaric cycle. This is the path that a Bodhisatta has to follow according to Mahayana. However, as GG says we must follow what Buddha advised in the Kalama Sutta, and when we do that, we realize the futility of the “Bhakthi Marga”, for no amount of merit acquired through the practice of rituals could bring us the wisdom of enlightenment. Faith cannot lead to Wisdom.

Hence the desirability of early Buddhism and cleansing of Theravada by getting rid of the impurities introduced into it by the betrayals of Ven. Buddhagosa and Mahayanists and also the occultism that arrived in its wake, is felt by those who value the pristine uniqueness of Buddhism.

N.A.de S. Amaratunga