1

Lecture 3

Fundamentals of the Theravāda Tradition (Part I)

Canon and Commentarial exegeses of the Tradition are based on certain fundamental factsi
and philosophical tenets. These principles can be termed as discourse community facts of the
Tradition.

Fundamentals and Rudimentary Philosophies of the Mahāvihāra Tradition

Facts are the information that need not to be verified within a certain discourse
community.ii Especially in a religious community such as the Mahāvihāra Tradition, these facts
are based on certain philosophical notions. They can be termed as the rudimentary philosophical
tenets of the community based on which facts are formulated.

In this study, the researcher recognises a distinct between fundamental facts and
philosophical notions of the teachings. For instance, as mentioned in the Visuddhimagga the
wisdom of change of lineage (gotrabhūñāṇa) is not included neither into the
paṭipadāñāṇadassanavisuddhi nor into the ñāṇadassanavisuddhi. This information is a
fundamental fact of the Tradition.iii The Sub-Commentary for Visuddhimagga explains reason why
this fact was formulated by ancient teachers. It is because gotrbhū wisdom neither contemplates
upon saṅkhāras as impermanent, suffering and non-self nor eradicates defilements even it takes
the unconditioned Nibbāna as its object.iv This explanation is the philosophical notion of the
fundamental.

For another instance, the notion that all the conditioned realities are impermanent is a
fundamental of the Canon. The philosophy behind such a notion is sort of an argument “How could
realities that beget by impermanent realities could be permanent?” However, this underline
 2

philosophy can also be considered as a fact, since it is a notion that requires no verification within
the Tradition.

In fact, such philosophical notions can be further deepened based on the Subject matter it
relates to. For instance, the notion ‘kamma yielding results (vipāka) in the future’ is a fundamental
of the Tradition. One requirement for this phenomenon to happen is the prevailing of latent defiling
mental tendencies (anusaya), which is a philosophical notion, at the same time, a fact which can
be termed as a fundamental. One can extend this inquiry to figure out the relationship of anusaya
with the ability of kamma in producing its results. Hence, a philosophical explanation can be
further deepened according to the issue it is concerned with.

Albeit, a distinction can be observed between fundamental facts and philosophical notions
of the Doctrine, in this paper both the aspects are commonly referred with terms such as ‘discourse
community facts’, ‘rudimentary facts’, ‘rudimentary / fundamental notions’ and even merely as
‘fundamentals’ and ‘facts’. In places where distinction do matter, the two aspects will be separately
addressed as ‘fundamentals’ or ‘facts’ and ‘philosophical-tenets’ or ‘-notions’ respectively.

An examination on the Tradition’s Literature would never be comprehensive without clear

understanding about its fundamentals. Because the identity of a particular Buddhist Tradition
mainly relies upon its discourse community facts or, in other words, its fundamentals. Hence, this
chapter is dedicated to unearth some of the discourse community facts of the Tradition of
Mahāvihāra, to show their salient position with in the Tradition and their relationship of the
commentarial and sub-commentarial Traditions with these facts. Then in the third chapter, based
on the fundamental notions, significant academic features of the Sub-Commentaries will be
examined.

Sources of Origin of Discourse Community Facts of the Mahāvihāra Tradition

Discourse community facts of the Tradition plausibly have four sources of origin.

1. All the basic fundamentals of buddhavacana are attributed to the knowledge of the Buddha

which he attained by understanding the verity of existence.

 3

2. Some of these basic fundamentals are clearly stated in certain Suttas and Stanzas. These

teachings which became fundamental facts are of two types.

a. Discourses delivered by the Buddha – buddhabhāsita

b. Discourses delivered by the disciples – sāvakabhāsita

3. Books pertaining to the Canon such as Abhidhamma Piṭaka and Paṭisambhidāmagga

contain major fundamental facts that govern a large swath of the Doctrine and practice of

the Mahāvihāra Tradition.

4. Some discourse community facts, which are used to explain the Canon, can be found only

in the commentarial Literature (including both Aṭṭhakathā and Ṭīkā). These facts can be

categorised into four different periods.

a. Fundamentals formulated while the Buddha was still alive.

b. Fundamentals formulated during the period between the Buddha’s demise and

introduction of Buddhism to Ceylon.

c. Fundamentals formulated during the period between the introduction of Buddhism

to Ceylon and compilation of Pali Commentaries.

d. Fundamentals formulated during the period between compilation of Pali

Commentaries and composition of Sub-Commentaries.

Relation of Buddhist Discourse Community Facts with the Knowledge of the Buddha

As it is obvious, from the very outset of the origination of Buddhism, teachings were
preached based on certain philosophical notions. These are the verities the Tathāgata
comprehended under the Bodhi tree in the remarkable event so-called enlightenment. The Buddha
delivered his sermons based on the truth he realised on that night and re-apprehended during
subsequent nights. During his ministry of 45 years, he even re-contemplated some of his findings
at his leisure. The Dutiyavihāra Sutta was expounded after one of Tathāgata’s three-month
personal retreats in which he rec-ontemplated various possibilities on how feeling can get
 4

originated based on diverse conditions. As he mentioned, what he contemplated during the three
months was a part of the variety he meditated upon during the weeks followed his enlightenment.v
At Sāvatthi. “Bhikkhus I wish to go into seclusion for three months. I should not be
approached by anyone except the one who brings me alms food”.
“Yes, venerable sir”, those bhikkhus replied, and no one approached the Blessed
One except the one who brought him alms food.
Then, when those three months had passed, the Blessed One emerged from
seclusion and addressed the bhikkhus thus:
“Bhikkhus, I have been dwelling in part of the abode in which I dwelt just after I
became fully enlightened. I have understood thus: ‘There is feeling with wrong
view as condition, also feeling with the subsiding of wrong view as condition. There
is feeling with right view as condition, also feeling with the subsiding of right view
as condition … There is feeling with wrong concentration as condition, also feeling
with the subsiding of wrong concentration as condition. There is feeling with right
concentration as condition, also feeling with the subsiding of right concentration as
condition. There is feeling with desire as condition, also feeling with the subsiding
of desire as condition. There is feeling with thought as condition, also feeling with
the subsiding of thought as condition. There is feeling with perception as condition,
also the subsiding of perception as condition’.
When desire has not subsided, and thought has not subsided, and perception has not
subsided, there is feeling with that as condition. When desire has subsided, and
thought has subsided, and perception has subsided, there is also feeling with that as
condition. There is effort for the attainment of the as-yet-unattained. When that
stage has been reached, there is also feeling with that as condition”.vi

Above information can be named as a list of discourse community facts related to the
conditionality of vedanā. These facts directly collaborate with and depict great resemblance to the
information found in the Canon of Abhidhammavii and some Suttas.viii Hence, it is flagrant the
Buddha expounded his teachings based on the understanding he attainted which is the very basic
fundamentals of all his teachings.

Discourse Community Facts Found in Suttas

In Buddhabhāsita

Some of the discourses directly provide fundamental notions of the Buddhist Doctrine. For
instance, the Saṅkhatalakkhaṇa Sutta.
Tīṇimāni, bhikkhave, saṅkhatassa saṅkhatalakkhaṇāni. katamāni tīṇi? uppādo
paññāyati, vayo paññāyati, ṭhitassa aññatattaṃ paññāyati. imāni kho, bhikkhave,
tīṇi saṅkhatassa saṅkhatalakkhaṇāni.ix
 5

Bhikkhus, there are these three characteristics that define the conditioned. What
three? An arising is seen, a vanishing is seen, and its alteration while it persists is
seen. These are the three characteristics that define the conditioned.x

This short Sutta explains a fundamental notion about conditioned realities that governs the
whole Literature of the Mahāvihāra Tradition.

In Sāvakabhāsita

Sāvakabhāsitas are another origin of discourse community facts. Fundamentals offered in

sāvakabhāsitas are of two types.

1. Fundamentals formulated from the discourses of the Master

2. Fundamentals formulated by disciples’ own intellectual aptitudes and spiritual experiences.

The Commentary on the Aṅguttara Nkāya narrates a story in which the two chief disciples
of the Buddha Anomadassī uttering discourses on the same topic. While the first disciple Nisabha
gave a Dhamma talk based on his understanding, (sāvakapāramīñāṇe ṭhatvā
pupphāsanānumodanaṃ ārabhi), the second thera Anoma delivered his sermon based on the
Canon (anomatthero tepiṭakaṃ buddhavacanaṃ sammasitvā dhammaṃ kathesi).xi

Above story suggests that the Tradition accepted the idea that disciples could make
sermons based their knowledge about the Canon and also their personal understanding. However,
the latter is appreciated and accepted only if it does not contradict with the prior. And some of
such opinions of sāvakas even became discourse community facts of the Tradition.

A discussion reportedly to have taken place between Venerable Sāriputta and Venerable
Koṭṭhita, as mentioned in the Mahāvedalla Sutta, clearly elaborates the aforementioned two
attributes of the information found in sāvakabhāsita.
Friend, when this body is bereft of how many states is it then discarded and
forsaken, left lying senseless like a log?
Friend, when this body is bereft of three states – vitality (āyu), heat (usmā) and
consciousness (viññāṇa) – it is then discarded and forsaken, left lying senseless like
a log.
Friend, what is the difference between one who is dead, who has completed his
time, and a bhikkhu who has entered upon the cessation of perception and feeling?
 6

Friend, in the case of one who is dead, who has completed his time, his bodily
formations have ceased and subsided, his verbal formations have ceased and
subsided, his mental formations have ceased and subsided, his vitality is exhausted,
his heat has been dissipated, and his faculties are fully broken up. In the case of a
bhikkhu who has entered upon the cessation of perception and feeling, his bodily
formations have ceased and subsided, his verbal formations have ceased and
subsided, his mental formations have ceased and subsided, but his vitality is not
exhausted, his heat is not been dissipated, and his faculties become exceptionally
clear. This is the difference between one who is dead, who has completed his time,
and a bhikkhu who has entered upon the cessation of perception and feeling.xii

The discussion renders information on two subject matters.

a. Characteristics of a dead person

b. Difference between a dead person and a person who had entered upon the cessation of

perception and feeling (nirodhasamāpatti).

Out of the two, on the one hand, it is logical to assume that the information on the first
subject matter was given by the chief disciple directly depending on the Canon. A stanza found in
the Saṃyutta Nikāya testimonies this fact.
āyu usmā ca viññāṇam – yadā kāyaṃ jahantimaṃ
apaviddho tadā seti – parabhattaṃ acetanaṃ

When vitality, heat, and consciousness

Depart from this physical body,
Then it lies there cast away:
Food for others, without volition

On the other hand, information rendered for the second matter is his own understanding,
and, later, it became a discourse community fact of the Tradition. This information is the
fundamental fact for the commentator of the Paṭisambhidāmagga to explain the difference
between the state of death and the attainment of nirodhasamāpatti.xiii

Discourse Community Facts Found in the Books Pertaining to the Canon

The teaching of Abhidhamma is exclusively dedicated to explain the major principles of

the teachings the Buddha delivered. Information found in it is dilated in its commentarial
Literature. Fundamental facts found in Abhidhamma are arranged in different descriptive
structures in literary works such as Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha, Abhidhammāvatāra,
 7

Saccasaṅkhepa and Nāmarūpapariccheda. Afterwards, the information so-presented in these

books were explicated by different scholars, and such exegetical works are known as the Ṭīkās of
those books. At this point, it is beneficial to be aware of some discourse community facts found in
this post canonical Literature. However, it should be stressed that these facts are nothing but the
same fundamentals presented in the Abhidhamma Piṭaka and its Commentary, but arranged in
different arrays.

The following is a description of few discourse community facts found in the Abhidhamma
Literature pertaining to the Mahāvihāra Tradition, with the elaboration of some few important
aspects.

Few Discourse Community Facts Related to the Theory of Ultimacy as Found in

Abhidhamma

According to Abhidhamma preserved in the Mahāvihāra Tradition, there are 4 groups of

ultimate realities.xiv

1. Citta (consciousness) – In the Abhidhamma Literature citta is explained in 89 or 121 ways.

2. Cetasika (mental factors) – There are 52 mental states that arise together with various

consciousness.

3. Rūpa (corporeality) – There are 28 types of physical realities (corporeality) explained in

Abhidhamma.

4. Nibbāna – This is the unconditioned state, which is summum bonum of the Tradition

A Buddhist school, named Yogācāra, which came into prominence among Indian Buddhist
schools since fifth century AD, suggested that these realities exist only in one’s mind. But a major
discourse community fact of the Mahāvihāra Tradition is that all these realties are independent of
the observer, it means, they do exist regardless the fact whether anyone observes them or not.
Thus, the two schools differed from each other in terms of a key fundamental.

Among the four types of ultimate realities, 52 cetasikas are divided into three groups.
1. Aññasamāna cetasika (ethically variable mental factors) 13
 8

2. Akusala cetasika (unwholesome mental factors) 14

3. Sobhana cetasika (beautiful mental factors) 25

Among the 14 akusala cetasikas, six are considered to be strong (thāmagata) i.e. lobha or
rāga (greed - It is of two types a kāmarāga (desire for sensual objects) and bhavarāga (desire for
jhāna attainments and life of bhrahmas).), dosa or paṭigha (anger), māna (conceit), ditṭhi (wrong-
view), vicikicchā (sceptical doubt) and moha or avijjā (ignorance). These seven mental factors are
found in three stages.

1. Vītikkama avatthā – Stage of transgression

2. Priyuṭṭhāṇa avatthā – Stage of obsession

3. Anusaya avatthā – Latent stage

As for the Mahāmālukya Sutta, unwholesome states at the level of latent stage are the main
cause by which beings as fettered to the round of rebirth.xv Mental impurities at this level do affect
the mind stream of beings. Even while a non-arahant performs a good deed with wholesome
consciousness associated with beautiful mental factors, still the mental impurities are present in
him at a latent level.

As it is mentioned in the Commentary on Kathāvatthu, the Andhaka school and some

schools in Uttarapatha considered anusaya as a different ultimate reality from pariyuṭṭhāna and
vītikkama kilesa. So, they defined it as a reality without an object (anārammaṇa), disassociated
with the consciousness (cittavippayutta), indeterminate (neither wholesome nor unwholesome)
(abyākata) and rootless (ahetuka). Venerable Moggalīputtatissa strongly denied this notion and
assured anusaya as a state with an object (sāraṃṃaṇa), associated with consciousness
(cittasampayutta), unwholesome (akusala) and together with roots (sahetuka),xvi since, when it
arises in priyuṭṭhāna and vītikkama stages, it is always with an object, associated with
consciousness, unwholesome and together with roots.xvii Therefore, the Tradition of Mahāvihāra
never holds unwholesome states in the stage of anusaya as a separate entity from the akusala in
pariyuṭṭhāna and vītikkama stages, but a sort of ultimate force with the possibility of arising when
 9

relevant causes have gathered. This was a distinct fundamental difference of the Doctrine of the
Mahāvihāra with Andhaka scholl and some schools in Uttarapatha.

Few Discourse Community Facts Related to the Theory of Causality as Found in

Abhidhamma

There are three prominent theories of causality.

1. Theory of four noble truths – According to it, suffering arises due to craving and Nibbāna

is attained by means of the eightfold noble path.

2. Theory of paṭiccasamuppāda – This explains how the chain of suffering continues in a

sequential manner from life to life.

3. Theory of 24 paccayas with the 24 paṭṭhāna – This is the broadest and widest cause-and-

effect-relationship explained in the Tradition.

It is fragrant that the notions thus presented in the Abhidhamma Literature have geatly
influenced number of Suttas and become underlying fundamentals of the teachings found in them.
The following is an example to reveal this idea.

Āsevana paccaya – One important fundamental to be mentioned in relation with the theory
of causality is the phenomenon of intensification of the mental attributes. Āsevana is one of the 24
conditions explained in Abhidhamma. According to the it, when wholesome or unwholesome
qualities of the mind are repeated, they get intensified and strengthened. Based on this notion, the
Tathāgata instructed his disciples to frequent their wholesome practice to attain spiritual progress.

Upanissaya Paccaya – Another important basic notion related to the theory of causality is
that some mental qualities assist for the arising of other related mental qualities. For instance, when
morality is developed, one can easily gain concentration, insight wisdom and even supra-mundane
attainments.xviii This conditional attribute is called upanissaya paccaya.

Following is an instruction given by the Master based on the two conditional relations
āsevana paccaya and upanissaya paccaya.
 10

samādhiṃ, bhikkhave, bhāvetha. samāhito bhikkhave, yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti.xix

Bhikkhus, develop concentration. A bhikkhu who is concentrated understands

things as they really are.xx

In the above instruction, the advice to develop concentration was given based on the causal
relation of āsevana paccaya, since, when the mental capacity of concentration is frequented it gets
intensified and strengthened. Then its effect is shown owing to the causal relation of upanissaya
paccaya, because, concentration beget the arising of wisdom through which one sees the actual
nature of the existence.

Unique Discourse Community Facts Found in the Paṭisambhidāmagga

Paṭisambhidhāmagga contains important fundamentals related to meditation of which

some are not found in the Abhidhamma Literature.

According to Abhidhamma and Suttas the two terms ajjhatta and bahiddā should be
understood as follows.

1. Ajjhatta – All the realities i.e. cittas, cetasikas and and rūpas, pertaining to an individual

being, which are considered as I or part of the self, are considered as internal (ajjhatta) to

that particular being.

2. Bahiddhā – To a particular being whatever reality pertaining to the life of another being,

to an inanimate thing and Nibbāna is considered external (bahiddhā).

However, the same two terms found in the Paṭisambhidāmagga and its Commentary,
related to the wisdom gotrabhū ñāṇa (wisdom of change of lineage) and magga ñāṇa (path
wisdom) have different meanings.

1. Ajjhatta – latent defilements, non-arisen aggregates related to latent defilements and non-

arisen vipāka realities that are supposed to arise in future,

2. Bahiddhā – whatever conditioned reality cognized by insight wisdom.xxi

 11

This classification is not found in the Abhidhamma Literature.

Discourse Community Facts Found in the Commentarial and Sub-Commentarial Literature

Some discourse community facts, which have been used to explain the Canon, can be found
in commentarial and sub-commentarial Literature. These facts can be categorised into four
different eras.

Fundamentals formulated while the Buddha was still alive

It is very difficult to exactly differentiate these types of fundamentals from the others
mentioned under (b). Still, it is certain that some fundamentals exclusive to Commentaries must
have originated from the Buddha himself.

Fundamentals Formulated during the Period between the Buddha’s Demise and

Introduction of Buddhism to Ceylon

The notion, “a single cetanā can exclusively produce only one rebirth but not multiple
rebirths, and multiple cetanās can produce multiple rebirths but they do not collectively yield one
rebirth” is one of the major fundamental theories of the Mahāvihāra Tradition. As the Commentary
on Dhammasaṅgaṇī states, this notion was firstly propounded by Elders in Sāketa. It is more likely
that Buddhist monks would have held to such a notion since the time of the Buddha, but, according
to the Commentarial information, it seems as if the theory was authenticated by theras living in
Sāketa in an era after the Master had passed away.xxii
On this occasion, they took up the ‘Sāketa query.’ In Sāketa the devotees,
assembled in hall, raised the query: – “When by one volition kamma is put forth, is
there one conception only or different conceptions? Being unable to decide it, they
went and asked the Abhidhamma Elders, who convinced them by saying, “Just as
from one mango seed only one sprout issues forth, so there is only one conception”.
The one day they raised the query thus: - “When kamma is put forth by different
volitions, are there different conceptions or is there one only?” And being unable
to decide it, they asked the Elders, who convinced them by saying, “Just as when
many mango seeds are sown, many sprouts issue forth, so are there many
conceptions”.xxiii

The Saṃyutta Nikāya Sub-Commentary has taken Sāketapañha as a fundamental to explain

the same notion of one kammic volition not giving two rebirths, “The final determination upon the
 12

notion of one kammic volition does not give two conceptions (rebirths) should be known by means
of the Sāketapañha”.xxiv
The exposition known as ussadakittana elaborates the reasons for the diversity of
temperament in beings. It is also a fundamental that is found only in the commentarial level.xxv
Furthermore, on this occasion there was drawn up what is known as the declaration
of preponderance. Namely: – These beings abound in in greed, hate and delusion,
as well as in non-greed, non-hatred and non-delusion. Now what determines the
abundance? Previous conditions. Variation is determined just at the moment when
kamma is exerted. How so? When, at such a moment, within the being (who does
the action), greed is strong, non-greed is weak, non-hatred and non-delusion is
strong, hatred and delusion are weak. Then that being’s weak greed is unable to
exhaust the strong greed, but non-hatred and non-delusion being strong are able to
exhaust hatred and delusion. Hence the being born through conception given by
such kamma, is greedy, happy going, good tempered, intelligent and keen as
adamant in wit.xxvi

In addition, fundamental theories such as ekattanaya (oneness of a mental lineage),

nānattanaya (difference of various consciousness in one mental lineage), abyāpāranaya (absence
of an intentional effort in causes to produce their results), evaṃdhammatānaya (the law of causes
producing relevant results)xxvii and anekahetuanekaphalanaya (teaching of multiple causes
begetting multiple results)xxviii are also introduced to the Tradition in the commentarial Literature.
Looking further ahead, it is evident that some of the fundamentals held upon by the
Tradition have evolved in Ceylon. Such discourse community facts can be categorised into two
groups as the fundamentals that emerged before the Pali Commentaries were written and after.

Fundamentals that Formulated during the Period between the Introduction of Buddhism to

Ceylon and Compilation of Pali Commentariesxxix

In the sect of Mahāvihāra, the nature of proximate insight meditation is considered to be

the fact that determines the absorption of the supra-mundane path consciousness. This notion has
three other related theories propounded by three Ceylonese Elders. They were Venerabel
Tipiṭakacūḷanāga, Venerable Mahādatta of Moravāpi and Venerable Cūḷābhaya.xxx These elders
have lived before the Pali commentary on Dhammasaṅgaṇī was compiled.

There is a considerable number of fundamentals which have evolved during this period.
While explaining how the kamma makes the diversity of the appearance of beings, Venerable
 13

Mahāsīva suggests that the species in which a being is born is determined by the nature of the
kamma and the appearance of the being such as cats, dogs and humans is decided by the nature of
the species.xxxi He also rendered the definition of the extreme level of wrong livelihood micchā-
ājīva.xxxii These fundamental notions have also originated in Ceylon before the committing of
Sinhalese Commentaries into Pali.

Fundamentals Formulated during the Period between Compilation of Pali Commentaries

and Composition of Sub-Commentaries

These types of fundamentals can be seen in the Ṭīkā Literature. Following are some
discourse community facts that are exclusive to Sub-Commentaries. They have originated in the
epoch between writing down major Pali Commentaries (of the four Nikāyas) and Sub-
Commentaries.

Volition of abhiññāṇa cittas is not considered as a saṅkhāra (kamma) which produces

viññāṇa (resultant consciousness) in the Commentary on Vibhaṅga.xxxiii But the reason for this
exclusion is not given. The author of Mūlaṭīkā (Venerable Ānanda Vanaratana) has given an
explanation for its infertility, which is certainly an attempt of formulating a new fundamental
(more accurately, an underlying philosophical notion) of the Tradition.xxxiv Then his suggestion
has been further clarified by the author of Anuṭīkā.xxxv According to their explanations, abhiññāṇa
is an outcome of well-developed concentration.xxxvi As people gain wealth in this very life just as
benign outcomes (ānisaṃsa) of their charity and virtue, but not as a result (kammavipaka) of their
good deeds, in the same manner, abhiññāṇa just gives outcomes such as reading others minds,
creating forms and hearing far away sounds,xxxvii but does not yield results in terms of
kammavipāka.xxxviii

Moreover, the author of Mūlaṭīkā mentions that according booked called Amataggapatha
no unwholesome volition that arise in a noble person will give results in future. This notion is
arrived at by referring to the information found in the Paṭṭhāna under the
dassanenapahātabbattika. As for the book, unwholesome mentalities arising in a noble being is
weak due to the absence of the support given by the self-view (sakkāyadiṭṭhi). Such weak
unwholesome volitions will not produce any results in the future.xxxix The exact time of the
 14

origination of this fundamental is not clear, but as for the information we have today, it is
introduced to the Tradition by the author of the Mūḷaṭīkā.

When observing the nature of above facts, it becomes conspicuous that fundamentals are
the very foundation for the validity of teachings. Some of these fundamentals were expounded by
the Buddha in person and some by his leading disciples. Such fundamentals need not to be verified
by any means. Later on, new fundamentals were formulated based on those rudimentary
fundamentals and philosophical tenets.
 15

Notes

i When it comes to ‘facts’ as Wardle Elizabeth considers, "In a rhetorical argument, a fact is a claim

that an audience will accept as being true without requiring proof". Wardle, Elizabeth; Downs, Douglas
(2011). Writing about Writing. Bedford/St. Martin's. ISBN 0-312-53493-0. Facts can be thought of merely as claims.i
(Academic Writing n.d.)

Therefore, ‘Discourse Community Facts’ means the information accepted within a certain group
of people who share a set of discourses, goals and ways of communicating about these goals. Within a
particular community, what has been regarded as ‘fact’ requires no verification.

A ‘discourse community’ is a group of people who share a set of discourses, understood as basic
ii

values and assumptions, and ways of communicating about those goals.

This definition is taken from the Wikipedia and it does resemble with widely accepted definitions
of a discourse community. For instance, as linguist John Swales defines discourse communities are “groups
that have goals or purposes, and use communication to achieve these goals" (Borg, Erik. Discourse
communities (ELT Journal 57:4)). Goals of a discourse community is defined by the discourses it holds as its
pivotal knowledge.

The Mahāvihāra Tradition in particular has characteristics of a discourse community. It has

preserved a Canon and maintained explicit unique exegeses; it has maintained a set of rhetorical discourses
or texts, a specific goal which is exclusively defined and advocated a practice in order to attain that goal.
As a result, based on its Literature, the Tradition can be lucidly distinguished from other Buddhist sects.
And the members of the Tradition did maintain certain channels of communication between each other
since past.

One might argue upon the fact if Mahāvihāra Tradition could be designated as a discourse
community. However, when looking into some of its characteristics, it will not be a fault to term the
Tradition as a certain discourse community even its features do not fully collaborate with all the six
definitions of a discourse community advocated by John Swales (English 1020: Inquiry, Reflection,
Collaboration, and Composition: Swales' 6 Characteristics of Discourse Communities, accessed 2019,
January 28, https://eng1020jankensfall2012.wordpress.com/.../swales-6-characteristics-of-discours,).

The members of the Tradition did communicate with each other with regard to matters related to
their teachings and practices since ancient days. Deliberations found in Commentarial and Sub-
Commentarial Literature are outcomes of such communication. And the Literature does contain lots of
stories in which disciples communicating with each other regarding textual and practical matters of their
religious community.

iii Vsm II 312.

iv Vsm-mṭ II 483.

v S V, 11-2: Dutiyavihāra Sutta.

vi Trans. Bhikkhu Bodhi, The Connected Discourses of the Buddha, Wisdom Publications, Boston,

2000, 1532.

vii Teachings found under the vedanāttika of Paṭṭhāna.

 16

viii M II 59-62: Bahuvedanīya Sutta; M III 18-26: Pañcattaya Sutta.

ix A III, 150

Bhikkhu Bodhi, The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Aṅguttara Nikāya
x

Wisdom Publications, Boston, 2012, 246

xi A-a I 110-21.

Trans. By Bhikkhu Ñāṇamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi, The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha,
xii

Wisdom Publications, Boston, 2009, 392-3

PsmA I 289-90: Matassa ca samāpannassa ca ko visesoti? Ayampi attho sutte vuttoyeva.

xiii

Yathāha – “Yo cāyaṁ, āvuso, mato kālaṅkato, tassa kāyasaṅkhārā niruddhā paṭippassaddhā,
vacīsaṅkhārā, cittasaṅkhārā niruddhā paṭippassaddhā, āyu parikkhīṇo, usmā vūpasantā, indriyāni
paribhinnāni. Yvāyaṁ bhikkhu saññāvedayitanirodhaṁ samāpanno, tassapi kāyasaṅkhārā niruddhā
paṭippassaddhā, vacīsaṅkhārā, cittasaṅkhārā niruddhā paṭippassaddhā, āyu aparikkhīṇo, usmā
avūpasantā, indriyāni aparibhinnānī”ti.

xiv Ultimate realities mean what really exist.

xv M II 95-100.

xvi Abh V 299-300, 323-7.

xvii Prd 340: Tadavatthikā kāmarāgādayo anusayānāma. Te pana aparamatthabhūtāpi na honti.

Ekantaparamatthajātikattā. Naca kusalābyākatabhūtā ekantākusalajātikattā. Nāpi kusalābyākataviruddhā,
visuṃ sampayuttadhammabhāvena anupaladdhattā. Nāpi kālattayavinimuttā,
tekālikadhammasannissayena pavattanato. Yadā pana te samuṭṭha hitvā pariyuṭṭhānabhāvaṃ gacchanti,
tadā visuṃ sampayuttadhamma bhāvañca gacchanti. Sārammaṇādibhāvoca tesaṃ paribyatto hoti.
Etadatthaṃ sandhāya kathāvatthumhi tesaṃ sārammaṇadhammabhāvo saṅkhārakkhandhabhāvoca
patiṭṭhāpito hotīti.

xviii Paṭṭh I 145.

xix S IV, 303

Bodhi Bhikkhu, The Connected Disourses of the Buddha – A Translation of the Saṃyutta Nikāya,
xx

Wisdom Publications, Boston, 2000, 1181.

xxi Psm-a I 24: Bahiddhā vuṭṭhānavivaṭṭane paññā gotrabhuñāṇanti ettha bahiddhāti

saṅkhāranimittaṁ. Tañhi ajjhattacittasantāne akusalakkhandhe upādāya bahiddhāti vuttaṁ.

Psm-a I 25: Dubhato vuṭṭhānavivaṭṭane paññā magge ñāṇanti ettha dubhatoti ubhato, dvayatoti vā
vuttaṁ hoti. Kilesānaṁ samucchindanato kilesehi ca tadanuvattakakkhandhehi ca
nibbānārammaṇakaraṇato bahiddhā sabbasaṅkhāranimittehi ca vuṭṭhāti vivaṭṭatīti dubhato
vuṭṭhānavivaṭṭane paññā.

Psm-a I 256: Khandhehīti tadanuvattakeheva khandhehi, taṁ diṭṭhiṁ anuvattamānehi

sahajekaṭṭhehi ca pahānekaṭṭhehi ca catūhi arūpakkhandhehi, taṁsamuṭṭhānarūpehi vā saha pañcahi
khandhehi micchādiṭṭhiādikilesapaccayā anāgate uppajjitabbehi vipākakkhandhehi.
 17

xxii Abh-a I 308.

xxiii Tin, Pe Maung, The Expositor - Translation of Atthasālinī, The Pali Text Society, Oxford, 1999,
355.

xxiv SṬī I 193: ekā cetanā dve paṭisandhiyo na detīti ettha sāketapañhavasena nicchayo veditabbo.

AbhiA I 308: Imasmiṃ ṭhāne sāketapañhaṃ nāma gaṇhiṃsu. Sākete kira upāsakā sālāyaṃ
nisīditvā ‘Kiṃ nu kho ekāya cetanāya kamme āyūhite ekā paṭisandhi hoti udāhu nānā’ti? Pañhaṃ nāma
samuṭṭhāpetvā nicchetuṃ asakkontā ābhidhammikatthere upasaṅkamitvā pucchiṃsu. Therā ‘Yathā ekasmā
ambabījā ekova aṅkuro nikkhamati, evaṃ ekāva paṭisandhi hotī’ti saññāpesuṃ. Athekadivasaṃ ‘Kiṃ nu
kho nānācetanāhi kamme āyūhite paṭisandhiyo nānā honti udāhu ekā’ti? Pañhaṃ samuṭṭhāpetvā nicchetuṃ
asakkontā there pucchiṃsu. Therā ‘Yathā bahūsu ambabījesu ropitesu bahū aṅkurā nikkhamanti, evaṃ
bahukāva paṭisandhiyo hontī’ti saññāpesuṃ.
xxv AbhiA I 308.

xxvi Tin, Pe Maung, The Expositor - Translation of Atthasālinī, The Pali Text Society, Oxford,
1999,, 355.

Some of the translations were put in by the writer of the Thesis.

AbhiA I 308: Parampi imasmiṃ ṭhāne ussadakittanaṃ nāma gahitaṃ. Imesañhi sattānaṃ lobhopi
ussanno hoti, dosopi mohopi; alobhopi adosopi amohopi. Taṃ nesaṃ ussannabhāvaṃ ko niyāmetīti?
Pubbahetu niyāmeti. Kammāyūhanakkhaṇeyeva nānattaṃ hoti. Kathaṃ? “Yassa hi kammāyūhanakkhaṇe
lobho balavā hoti alobho mando, adosāmohā balavanto dosamohā mandā, tassa mando alobho lobhaṃ
pariyādātuṃ na sakkoti, adosāmohā pana balavanto dosamohe pariyādātuṃ sakkonti. Tasmā so tena
kammena dinnapaṭisandhivasena nibbatto luddho hoti, sukhasīlo akkodhano, paññavā pana hoti
vajirūpamañāṇo”ti.

xxvii Abh-a II 188-9.

xxviii Abh-a II 139-40.

xxix As for the Tradition holds, Venerable Dhammapala was both a commentator and sub-
commentator. He is attributed with some Commentaries belonging to the Khuddaka Nikāya and Sub-
Commentaries of three major Nikāyas i.e. Dīgha, Majjhima and Saṃyutta. And it is also believed that he
lived later to Venerable Ānanda Vanaratana, who, according to Malalasekara, is supposed to have lived
around eighth or ninth century AD. Therefore, if this information is to be considered as accurate, the
Dhammapala’s era is considered to be the era of Sub-Commentaries.

xxx Abh-a I 271-4.

xxxi M III 295.

xxxii Abh-a I 265.

xxxiii Abh-a II 137: Abhiññācetanā panettha parato viññāṇassa paccayo na hotīti na gahitā.

xxxiv Ml-ṭ II 95.

 18

xxxv Anu-ṭ II 100-1.

xxxvi Ml-ṭ II 95: Kasiṇesu ca uppāditassa catutthajjhānasamādhissa ānisaṁsabhūtā abhiññā.

xxxviiAnu-ṭ II 101: Tassa tassa adhiṭṭhānavikubbanadibbasaddasavanādikassa yadicchitassa

kiccassa nipphādanamattaṁ pana abhiññācetanā …

Ml-ṭ II 95: Tasmā samādhiphalasadisā sā, na ca phalaṁ detīti dānasīlānisaṁso tasmiṁ bhave
xxxviii

paccayalābho viya sāpi vipākaṁ na uppādeti.

xxxix Ml-ṭ 95-7.