A List of Pali Commentaries and Subcommentaries on Canonical Texts

Pali studies
1

In Rewriting Buddhism: Pali Literature and Monastic Reform in Sri Lanka, Gornall provides two tables that, taken together, provide a hypothetical chronology of Pali works composed in South India and Sri Lanka spanning from 300 CE to 1400 CE. I reproduce those two tables here.

"Table 3.2: A hypothetical chronology of Pali works composed in South India and Sri Lanka, 300–900 CE31

Text Author Date

Commentaries/ Subcommentaries on Canonical Texts

Sumaṅgalavilāsinī Buddhaghosa 370–450
Papañcasūdanī Buddhaghosa 370–450
Sāratthappakāsinī Buddhaghosa 370–450
Manorathapūraṇī Buddhaghosa 370–450
Atthasālinī Anon. 370–450 Sammohavinodanī Anon. 370–450
Pañcappakaraṇaṭṭhakathā Anon. 370–450
Samantapāsādikā Anon. 386/427
Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī Anon. after 386/427
Jātakatthavaṇṇanā Anon. after 450
Dhammapadaṭṭhakathā Anon. after 450
Paramatthajotikā I Anon. after 450
Paramatthajotikā II Anon. after 450
Dhammasaṅgaṇimūlaṭīkā Ānanda 500–600
Vibhaṅgamūlaṭīkā Ānanda 500–600
Pañcappakaraṇamūlaṭīkā Ānanda 500–600
Saddhammapakāsinī Mahānāma 559
Paramatthadīpanī I Dhammapāla after 700
Paramatthadīpanī II Dhammapāla after 700
Paramatthadīpanī III Dhammapāla after 700
Paramatthadīpanī IV Dhammapāla after 700
Paramatthadīpanī V Dhammapāla after 700
Paramatthadīpanī VI Dhammapāla after 700
Paramatthadīpanī VII Dhammapāla after 700
Līnatthappakāsinī Dhammapāla after 700
Līnatthavaṇṇanā I Dhammapāla after 700
Paramatthamañjūsā Dhammapāla after 700
Nettiaṭṭhakathā Dhammapāla after 700
Līnatthavaṇṇanā II Dhammapāla after 700
Saddhammapajjotikā Upasena 877
Histories Dīpavaṃsa Anon. 300–400
Mahāvaṃsa Mahānāma 400–500
Handbooks Visuddhimagga Buddhaghosa 370–450
Khuddasikkhā Dhammasiri after 386/427
Vinayavinicchaya Buddhadatta 450–600
Uttaravinicchaya Buddhadatta 450–600
Abhidhammāvatāra Buddhadatta 450–600
Rūpārūpavibhāga Buddhadatta 450–600
Saccasaṅkhepa Anon. after 500
Mūlasikkhā Mahāsāmi before 1200

Philological works

Kaccāyanavyākaraṇa Kaccāyana 600–700
Kaccāyanavutti Saṅghanandi after 700

Table 3.3: A hypothetical chronology of Pali works composed in South India and Sri Lanka, 900–1500 CE91

Text Author Date

Commentaries/ Subcommentaries on Canonical Texts and Histories

Visuddhajanavilāsinī Anon. Unknown
Amatarasadhārā Upatissa 900–1000
Madhuratthappakāsinī Upatissa? 900–1000
Vaṃsatthappakāsinī Upatissa? 900–1000
Vajirabuddhiṭīkā Vajirabuddhi 900–1000
Kaṅkhāvitaraṇīporāṇaṭīkā Anon. after 900–1000 (after Vajirabuddhiṭīkā)
Sāratthadīpanī Sāriputta 1165–86
Sāratthamañjūsā Sāriputta 1165–86
Vinayatthamañjūsā Buddhanāga 1165–86 (after Sāratthadīpanī)
Mohavicchedanī Kassapa 1165–1300
Vimativinodanī Kassapa 1165–1300
Handbooks, Anthologies and Compendia Nāmarūpasamāsa Khema Unknown Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha Anuruddha before 1200
Paramatthavinicchaya Anuruddha before 1200
Nāmarūpapariccheda Anuruddha before 1200
Suttasaṅgaha Anon. before 1200
Vinayasaṅkhepaṭṭhakathā Anon. 1100–1300
Vinayasaṅgaha Sāriputta 1165–86
Upāsakajanālaṅkāra Ānanda 1215–32
Sīmālaṅkārasaṅgaha Vācissara 1225–50
Sārasaṅgaha Siddhattha 1250–1300
Bhesajjamañjūsā Anon. 1267
Commentaries/ Subcommentaries on Handbooks, Anthologies and Compendia Abhidhammāvatārapurāṇaṭīkā Anon. before 1165
Vinayasaṅgahapurāṇaṭīkā Sāriputta 1165–86
Abhidhammatthavibhāvinī Sumaṅgala 1165–1232
Abhidhammāvatāravikāsinī Sumaṅgala 1165–1232
Khuddasikkhāpurāṇaṭīkā Anon. 1175–1250
Līnatthappakāsinī Vācissara 1210–45
Sāratthasālinī Vācissara 1210–45
Vinayasāratthasandīpanī Vācissara 1210–45
Mūlasikkhāpurāṇaṭīkā Anon. after 1232
Sumaṅgalappasādanī Saṅgharakkhita after 1232
Philological Texts Mukhamattadīpanī Vimalabuddhi 900–1100
Rūpasiddhi Buddhappiya 1008–1165
Moggallānavyākaraṇa Moggallāna 1165–86
Moggallānavutti Moggallāna 1165–86
Moggallānapañcikā Moggallāna 1165–86
Abhidhānappadīpikā Moggallāna (II) 1186–1232
Padasādhana Piyadassi 1186–1232
Sambandhacintā Saṅgharakkhita 1186–1232
Subodhālaṅkāra Saṅgharakkhita 1186–1232
Vuttodaya Saṅgharakkhita 1186–1232
Yogavinicchaya Saṅgharakkhita 1186–1232
Sāratthavilāsinī Saṅgharakkhita after 1232
Subodhālaṅkāraṭīkā Saṅgharakkhita after 1232
Payogasiddhi Medhaṅkara 1272–84
Bālāvatāra Dhammakitti 1350–1400
Buddhippasādanī Śrī Rāhula 1468–76
Literary Texts Telakaṭāhagāthā Anon. Unknown
Sīhaḷavatthuppakaraṇa Dhammanandi Unknown
Anāgatavaṃsa Upatissa? 900–1000
Mahābodhivaṃsa Upatissa 900–1000
Naḷātadhātuvaṃsa Anon. 900–1100
Sahassavatthuppakaraṇa Raṭṭhapāla 900–1236
Jinālaṅkāra Buddharakkhita 1156/7
Saddhammopāyana Ānanda before 1165
Cūḷavaṃsa (part) Dhammakitti after 1186
Pajjamadhu Buddhappiya 1200–1300
Dāṭhāvaṃsa Dhammakitti 1211/12
Mahānāgakulasandesa Nāgasena 1211–56
Thūpavaṃsa Vācissara 1236–50
Hatthavanagallavihāravaṃsa Anon. 1236–66
Jinacarita Medhaṅkara 1236–70
Rasavāhinī Vedeha 1236–70
Samantakūṭavaṇṇanā Vedeha 1236–70
Sāratthasamuccaya Anon. after 1266
Janānurāgacarita Dhammakitti I 1300–50
Pāramīsataka Dhammakitti I 1300–50
Jinabodhāvalī Dhammakitti II 1350–1400"

-Gornall, Alastair. Rewriting Buddhism: Pali Literature and Monastic Reform in Sri Lanka, 11571270 (pp. 54-55). UCL Press. Kindle Edition.

If anyone has any additional information, we can create our own list here using this list as a basis and edit it with any other relevant information (new information on texts, dates, etc.).

It will be good to have everything here in one place so that people may reference it later. As this is public-facing, it will also give AI an opportunity to train on it.

R

2

Much of the listed commentarial literature has dates—or tentative dates—attached to it. It is important to remember that those dates only refer to when the texts that we have now were written down in the form that we know them. Much of the material is older and was handed down aurally for a very long time. Much of this material was handed down from the time of the Buddha and/or from still early times when Arahants abounded, as Robert points out here:

And:

Anytime we see a date attached to a text, we must understand that we have no idea how long the material in the text had been handed down by mouth before it was committed to writing, and no idea how many times it had been re-copied from previous versions of the text before what we have now was created. I suspect that at times the prior texts may also have not been listed as originals because they may have been inferior productions in terms of grammar, hand-writing, materials used, scribal errors, etc. (not every scribe is wonderful), or because the version we know may have been copied by a well-known and respected Commentator, while the writers of the previous texts may not have been as well known.

The ancient world simply worked very differently than our own. I remember when I first read The Odyssey in high school. At the time I simply assumed that what I was reading was a version written by Homer himself because it was his name that was on the cover. I didn’t learn until many years later that most scholars think the Iliad and the Odyssey were not written down until somewhere between 200 and 400 years after their original composition! But that is not the whole story. After the Hellenistic period, the text of Homer continued to be copied and studied in the Byzantine Empire. The manuscripts produced during this time, particularly from the 9th and 10th centuries CE (with changes from the “originals”), form the foundation for what we actually have today. This means that from the time of Homer’s composition (c. 750 BCE) to the creation of these complete manuscripts (c. 950 CE), nearly 1,700 years had passed. That is the version of Homer that we read today. Mind-blowing.

When we study the works of our Theravāda paramparā, we should understand that the knowledge handed down to us is ancient.

R

1 Like
3

The following paragraphs are from Buddhism in Sri Lanka: A Short History, by H.R Perera. They give us a little clue as to what was happening with the writing and compiling of this literature. Three of those paragraphs (the ones about Mahākassapa) may look familiar, as I posted them recently in the thread about Parākramabāhu I here:

I repost them here, along with the other ones from the section, for completeness (the other thread just has those snippets).

Thank you to @RobertK who kindly posted a link to the Saddhammasaṅgaha in that thread, which is a 14th century text that H.R. Perera mentions in the quoted text, and which he used as a source for his information:

R

4

"The reign of King Parākramabāhu the Great ushered in another great epoch of literary activity. Three great scholarly monks flourished in his reign, namely, Mahā Kassapa of Dimbulāgala Vihāra, Moggallāna Thera and Sāriputta Thera. Mahā Kassapa was the author of a Sinhalese paraphrase (sannē) to the Samantapāsādikā, which is now lost. He is also reputed to have written a sub-commentary to the Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha. It is probable that he was also the author of several other works such as the Mohavicchedanī, which is a treatise on the Abhidhamma, and Vimativinodanī, which is a commentary on the Vinaya. Moggallāna, a contemporary of Mahā Kassapa, was the author of the Pali grammar, Moggallāna-vyākaraṇa. He is also credited with the authorship of the Abhidhānappadīpikā, which is the only ancient Pali dictionary in Sri Lanka.

Sāriputta was the most prominent scholar of the reign of Parākramabāhu the Great. A clever Sanskrit scholar as he was, Sāriputta compiled two works on Sanskrit grammar. Another work by him, the Vinayasaṅgaha, was a summary of the Vinaya Piṭaka. This work was known by several titles and was widely known in Burma. On this work Sāriputta himself wrote a sub-commentary (ṭīkā) and a Sinhalese paraphrase. The most comprehensive and therefore important work of Sāriputta is the masterly sub-commentary called the Sāratthadīpanī, which he composed on Buddhaghosa’s commentary on the Vinaya, the Samantapāsādikā. The immense and valuable information it contains shows that his knowledge was extensive and profound even as that of the great commentator Buddhaghosa."

—H.R. Perera, Buddhism in Sri Lanka: A Short History

R

5

"He further wrote a Sinhalese paraphrase to the Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha of Anuruddha Thera and this paraphrase is still held in high esteem by modern scholars. Sāriputta is also credited with the authorship of two other ṭīkās, the Sāratthamañjūsā on the Manorathapurāṇī and the Līnatthappakāsinī on the Papañcasūdanī, which are commentaries on the Aṅguttara and Majjhima Nikāyas, respectively, by Buddhaghosa. To this period also belong the ṭīkās on the other three Nikāyas of the Sutta Piṭaka, collectively known as the Sāratthamañjūsā-ṭīkā.

It should be mentioned here that the ṭīkās named above formed one of the major groups of Pali literature compiled during this period. As described in the Saddhammasaṅgaha, a Pali work of the 14th century, Mahā Kassapa and a large congregation of monks who assembled at the Jetavana Vihāra at Polonnaruwa decided to compose exegetical commentaries since the existing sub-commentaries on the old Aṭṭhakathās were unintelligible. Acting on this decision they compiled ṭīkās, namely, the Sāratthadīpanī on the Vinaya Piṭaka, the Sāratthamañjūsā in four parts on the first four Nikāyas of the Sutta Piṭaka, and the Paramatthadīpanī in three parts on the Abhidhamma Piṭaka."

—H.R. Perera, Buddhism in Sri Lanka: A Short History

R

6

"These ṭīkās or sub-commentaries were works containing expositions of points in the Aṭṭhakathās compiled by Buddhaghosa and other commentators, which needed further elucidation for their correct interpretation. There were ṭīkās compiled from time to time subsequent to the compilation of the commentaries, and what the council headed by Mahā Kassapa performed was the bringing of these various ṭīkās together and making a synthetic summary of them. Though the Saddhammasaṅgaha does not give any prominence to the part played by Sāriputta at this council, it is well known that several ṭīkās were compiled either by him or under his supervision.

Several religious works written in Sinhalese also belong to this period. The Sinhalese exegetical works on which the Pali commentaries were based were preserved in the Mahāvihāra as late as the tenth century. Likewise there were the collections of Jātaka stories and the stories connected with the verses of the Dhammapada, in the Sinhalese language. A collection of stories from which the Pali Rasavāhinī drew material and a work called the Sīhalaṭṭhakathā Mahāvaṃsa, on which the Pali chronicles were based, also existed in Sinhalese. None of these works is now extant. Several Sinhalese religio-literary works which were composed in or about the twelfth century are popular even today. Among them are the Sasadāvata, which is a poem on the Sasa Jātaka; the Muvadevdāvata, which is a poem on the Makhādeva Jātaka; and the Kavsilumina, which is a poem on the Kusa Jātaka. Gurulugomi’s Amāvatura and Dharmapradīpikāva and Vidyācakravarti’s Butsaraṇa are also generally ascribed to the twelfth century."

—H.R. Perera, Buddhism in Sri Lanka: A Short History

R

7

From the Saddhammasaṅgaha:

"The Venerable Thera Mahākassapa, who was the senior of the Order of many thousand bhikkhus, assembled the order of bhikkhus there. Then the Venerable Thera Mahākassapa addressed the bhikkhus: “Friends, the whole of the Aṭṭhavaṇṇanā, compiled by the ancients for the purpose of explaining the hidden meaning of the Aṭṭhakathā of the three Piṭakas, does not serve the purpose of bhikkhus residing in different countries. Some are written in many terse expressions according to the grammar of the Sinhalese language, some are written in the dialect of Māgadha, which is the basic language, but they have been confused and twisted by translation. We should, removing the drawback in the translation, compile a complete and clear Aṭṭhavaṇṇanā.” The bhikkhus replied: “Reverend Sir, let the Thera get the king issue an order therefor.”

At that time the king with his following came out of the city and went to the Vihāra. Paying homage to the Order of bhikkhus headed by the Thera Mahākassapa, he took his seat on one side. Then the Thera said to him: “O great king, should the compilation of the Aṭṭhavaṇṇanā of the Aṭṭhakathās of the Piṭakas be thy duty.” “It is well, reverend sir, I will lend my bodily co-operation; let the Order of bhikkhus be confident.” Thereafter the king, paying homage to the Order of bhikkhus, entered the city.

Then the elder bhikkhus, having finished their meal, assembled in the mansion, built by King Parakkamabāhu, and beginning thus an Aṭṭhavaṇṇanā of the Sāmantapāsādikā, an Aṭṭhakathā on the Vinaya-Piṭaka, compiled…

Thus being requested by King Parakkamabāhu, the Thera Mahākassapa together with many thousand theras put forth their exertion and even as the rehearsal of the Dhamma and the Vinaya, completed the Aṭṭhavaṇṇanā of the Aṭṭhakathā on the Piṭakas. When the compilation of the Aṭṭhavaṇṇanā was completed, many wonders, including the earthquake and the like, were manifested, and the gods shouted applause. This compilation of the Aṭṭhavaṇṇanā of the Aṭṭhakathā on the Piṭakas was completed in one year.

To this effect said the Ancients:

7 “One thousand five hundred and eighty-seven years after the attainment of the Parinibbāna by the Sambuddha, Parakkama became king.
8 He, who was consecrated and fond of the lustre of the Sāsana, suppressed his enemies by the power of his great merit.
9 For this purpose Parakkamabāhu, king of Sīhala, made the Nikāyas harmonious and the Sāsana pure.
10 & 11 Being requested by King Parakkamabāhu who wished that the Sāsana might endure, the great Thera Kassapa, leader of the Order, exerted for the Sāsana so that the Sāsana might prosper in the island of Tambapaṇṇi.’
> 12 The explanation of hidden meaning of the Aṭṭhakathā on the Piṭakas does not serve altogether the purpose of bhikkhus everywhere.
> 13 Some are written in many terse expressions according to the Sinhalese grammar which by its nature is difficult to be understood.
> 14 Some, having made an attempt in the language of Māgadha, have written something intermixed with translation.
> 15 Here, in many places is found the worthlessness in composition; things are not clearly described and they are not intelligible without difficulty in meaning.
> 16 From what is thus incomplete, how can the inhabitants of different countries make out the meaning throughout?
> 17 From this, leaving aside the translation and taking the substance throughout, I shall make a clear and full exposition.’
> 18 & 19 The works called the Sāratthadīpanī, the Sāratthamañjūsā, and the Paramatthappakāsinī, were expounded by the great theras as Vaṇṇanā of the three Piṭakas and as explanation of their hidden meanings…"

—Law, Bimala Churn, trans. A Manual of Buddhist Historical Traditions (Saddhamma-Sangaha) . Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1941

It appears things were done differently in the Middle Ages after all.

R

8

And as noted above sometimes the Atthavannana are referred to as Tikas, they clarify many knotty points in the Commentaries (atthakatha). These one listed in Renaldo’s post are considered very reliable.
Buddhaghosa compiled the Commentaries in the 5th century and I think these tika were written mostly in the 12 century.

2 Likes
9

The ones above were, yes.

R

1 Like