In the reign of Buddhadâsa[83] a learned monk named Mahâdhammakathi is said to have translated the Suttas into Sinhalese, which at this time was esteemed the proper language for letters and theology, but in the next century a contrary tendency, probably initiated by Buddhaghosa, becomes apparent and Sinhalese works are rewritten in Pali.[84] But nothing indicates that any part of what we call the Pali Canon underwent this process. Buddhaghosa distinguishes clearly between text and comment, between Pali and Sinhalese documents. He has a coherent history of the text, beginning with the Council of Râjagaha; he discusses various readings, he explains difficult words. He treated the ancient commentaries with freedom, but there is no reason to think that he allowed himself any discretion or right of selection in dealing with the sacred texts accepted by the Mahâvihâra, though it might be prudent to await the publication of his commentaries on all the Nikâyas before asserting this unreservedly. To sum up, the available evidence points to the conclusion that in the time of Asoka texts and commentaries preserved orally were brought to Ceylon. The former, though in a somewhat fluid condition, were sufficiently sacred to be kept unchanged in the original Indian language, the latter were translated into the kindred but still distinct vernacular of the island. In the next century and a half some additions to the Pali texts were made and about 20 B.C. the Mahâvihâra, which proved as superior to the other communities in vitality as it was in antiquity, caused written copies to be made of what it considered as the canon, including some recent works. There is no evidence that Buddhaghosa or anyone else enlarged or curtailed the canon, but the curious tradition that he collected and burned all the books written by Mahinda in Sinhalese[85] may allude to the existence of other works which he (presumably in agreement with the Mahâvihâra) considered spurious. Soon after the departure of Buddhaghosa Dhâtusena came to the throne and "held like Dhammasoka a convocation about the three Piṭakas."[86] This implies that there was still some doubt as to what was scripture and that the canon of the Mahâvihâra was not universally accepted. The Vetulyas, of whom we heard in the third century A.D., reappear in the seventh when they are said to have been supported by a provincial governor but not by the king Aggabodhi[87] and still more explicitly in the reign of Parâkrama Bâhu (c. 1160). He endeavoured to reconcile to the Mahâvihâra "the Abhayagiri brethren who separated themselves from the time of king Vaṭṭagâmaṇi Abhaya and the Jetavana brethren that had parted since the days of Mahâsena and taught the Vetulla Piṭaka and other writings as the words of Buddha, which indeed were not the words of Buddha[88]." So it appears that another recension of the canon was in existence for many centuries.