108 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [N.S., XV, 
likewise exist. The Ceylon- commentary, which is free from 
faults, and which was written in Singhalese by thoughtful 
Mahinda after due consultation of the method of expositions, 
the people of Ceylon. Please go there and eae it, and then 
translate it into Magadhi which will be useful to the whole 
world.” 
ane this it is i that the commentaries were not 
to be found in India at the time of Buddhaghosa ; they were 
all to be found in Pecllin. It follows further that the commen- 
taries, as they come down to us, were not the original com- - 
in Singhalese and Buddhaghosa a retranslator in Pali. 
Buddhaghosa himself freely admits in his prologues to 
several commentaries,’ that he annotated those passages only 
which were not commented upon by his predecessors, and 
the rest he only translated. All the available evidences point 
to the fact that within the first decade of Buddha’s enlighten- 
ment Buddhist headquarters were established adjoining many 
important towns and cities of the time, viz. Benares, Raja- 
gaha, Vesali, Nalanda, Pava, Ujjeni, Campa, Madhura, Ulumpa, 
and so on. At each of these places sprang up a community 
of Bhikkus under the gpg and guidance of a famous 
disciple of Buddha such as Mahakassapa, reas epeaie bewit 
Mahakotthita, Sariputta, Moggallana, and the like. Followin 
the rule of the wanderers or sophists they used to sand 
the rainy season at a royal pleasure garden or a monastery, 
after which they generally met together once a year at Raja- 
gaha, Beluvana, Savatthi or elsewhere. Friendly interviews 
among themselves, and occasional calls on contemporary 
sophists, were not unknown. Among these various leaders 
of Bhikkhus, some were ranked foremost in doctrine, some 
in discipline, some in ascetic practices, some in story telling, 
some in analytical expositions, some in preaching, some in 
families, an 
Vedic literature. It may be naturally asked: What were 
1 Mahavamsa, Chap. 7 ; Ba Foon s Pali Reader, p. 28. Vis uddhi- 
magga, ed. Buddhadatta, p. 2, cf. Sasanava amsa, p. 31; it sel eared bhin- 
seniy na vijjare as bhineohutys atthi, which is a misinterpretation. 
Sumangalavilasiai I, p. 1 (P.T.S). Saratthapakas sini, p 
3 Vi Etadaggavaggo, Anguttara Nika@ya I; vena sng edited by 
Geiger. ‘ The Council of Mahakassapa.’ 
