Dhamma

According to the Gandavamsa we say that Paramatthadipani plus 5 Tikas were written by Dhammapala but recently one Scholar, A.K Warder proposed the new theory that Dhammapala who is the author of Paramatthadipani and the Dhammapala who wrote Tikas on Visuddhi D.A, MA and SA, are two separate individuals. The reason why he proposed this theory is that Sariputta, who was one of commentatores during 13AD, whenever he makes reference to the commentaries of Dhammapala. But when he refers to one Dhammapala who supposes to be the author of Tika, he refers to him Acariya Dhammapala.

So on this basis A.K Warder believes that there must have been two Dhammapalas. One is Dhammapala who is the author of Paramatthadipani and another one is the author of Tikas but unfortunately it is rather difficult to prove that. In fact in the history of Pali literature we have more than one Dhammapala no doubt about it. In later period there was Cula Dhammapala. But he had nothing to do with Tikas. So this Cula Dhammapala excludes from our arguments.

A.K Warder had not done the extensive research on the commentaries by Dhammapala. In order to come to definite conclusion, one must be familiar with all commentaries and sub-commentaries that were ascribed to be the authorship of Dhammapala. Without having through investigation into all Athnakatha and Tikas, then one cannot come a definite conclusion.

At the moment we traditionally believe that Dhammapala who is the author of Paramatthadipani is also the same Dhammapala who wrote all these Tikas. So if that sanction goes on, then everything goes on.

The next question is here whether his commentaries were based on the sources of Mahavihara tradition. In another words whether Dhammapala represents Mahavihara tradition or others. In fact the basic sources on which Dhammapala wrote the commentaries were some of Sinhala sources such as Mahaatthakatha, Agama, A. Khandaka A, Porana A, Atthakathacariya, Acariya. These are definitely the sources belong to the Mahavihara tradition. Therefore we can definitely say that Dhammapala also represents Mahavihara tradition.

Then the next question here is whether he wrote his commentaries in Sri Lanka and his South India. Dhammapala does not mention any names of person or place in Sri Lanka in his commentaries. On this basis Prof.Mori believes that he wrote his commentaries in South India because had he come to Sri Lanka, he could have incorporated some of local elements of Sri Lanka in his commentaries as mush as Buddhaghosa did.

One possible reason is that not only Mahavihara but also “Abhayagiri had their branches in South India. Therefore it is quite possible that they would have sent manuscripts from Sri Lanka to India. Those manuscripts would have been available to Dhammapala when he was writing his commentaries. Unfortunaltely my knowledge is that Prof.Mari said no mention of Sri Lanka name of places and at the same time, we don’t also have any names of South India. How can you prove on this particular basis?