Appreciating and recording of the ancient Commentaries and tikas

Authenticity of Texts
1

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
2

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

3

"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

4

"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

5

"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

6

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

7

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
8

The ones above were, yes.

R

1 Like
9

Aside from providing a comprehensive list of Commentaries and Subcommentaries, this thread has turned out to be very revealing. It has got us thinking about the many factors that went into the final creation of such texts—the fact that surviving documents were often decaying and needed to be copied afresh, that some contained poor Pāli with grammatical errors, that some were written in Sinhalese, and some in Pāli intermixed with Sinhalese, some with parts that were no longer legible, some with bad translations. In addition, from the account of the interactions between the monks and the king in the Saddhammasaṅgaha, we know that such efforts sometimes needed royal support. There may also have been pressure from scholars, leading scribes, high-ranking or otherwise well-respected monks.

This got me thinking about the Chronicles, as this is a class of texts that is often political as well as religious, and which clearly leans on earlier sources extensively, including written histories. What kind of factors went into the creation of these texts? Were they written mostly for political or cultural reasons? What kind of inputs were there?

By chance, I was watching a documentary about Alfred the Great and his chronicle project during the Anglo-Saxon period. A number of things the narrator points out about the reasons behind making the chronicle as well as the process of making it, got me thinking there are very likely strong parallels with the Buddhist chronicles. If anyone is interested, the relevant section can be found here: https://youtu.be/8KGyco92yDM?t=9195

R

10

“The judgement pronounced by Rhys Davids on Dip. and Mah. sounds much more favourable. He says: “The Ceylon Chronicles would not suffer in comparison with the best of the Chronicles, even though so considerably later in date, written in England or in France.” He also lays stress on the fact that, as is self-evident, those Chronicles contain no pure history. But they represent the traditions of their time and permit us to draw retrospective conclusions as to earlier periods.”

—The Mahavamsa, translated by Wilhelm Geiger, introduction by the translator (London: Pali Text Society / Oxford University Press)

2 Likes
11

I am delighted that you appreciate these ancient texts Renaldo. They are amazing records of the ancient sangha and the kings and population of the various times.
Reading them helps us appreciate the depth of their understanding and faith and encourages us in our modest Dhamma endeavours.

2 Likes
12

Indeed! :folded_hands:

R

13

They certainly did have a great deal of saddhā (faith):

"The Atthasālinī refers to a simile given in the Questions of King Milinda (35)¹: a universal monarch crosses a small stream with his army. The water has been polluted by the army but his water-purifying gem purifies the water so that mud, sand and waterweeds subside and the water becomes clear and undisturbed. The water which is disturbed by pollution is like the mind which is disturbed by defilements. Faith purifies the mind so that it becomes clear, transparent and undisturbed.

As to the characteristic of “aspiring”, the Atthasālinī uses another simile in order to explain this. A crowd standing on both banks of a great river full of crocodiles, monsters, sharks and ogres, is afraid to cross over. A hero crosses the river and repels the dangerous animals with his sword, and leads the crowd in crossing over. The Atthasālinī (120) states:

“…So faith is the forerunner, the precursor to one who is giving gifts, observing the precepts, performing the duties of uposatha² and commencing bhāvanā. Hence it has been said: Faith has purifying and aspiring as its characteristic.”

The Atthasālinī also uses another method of defining saddhā:

“…Faith has confiding as its characteristic; purifying as its function, like the water-purifying gem, or aspiring faith as function, like the crossing of the floods; freedom from pollution or decision as its manifestation; an object worthy of faith or factors of ‘stream-winning’ as its proximate cause.”

—Nina van Gorkom, Cetasikas (Zolag, 2010)

R

1 Like
14

And definitely great understanding:

Understanding (paññā):

“There are many kinds and degrees of understanding. There can be understanding which is knowing the benefit of wholesomeness and the disadvantages of unwholesomeness, there can be understanding which stems from contemplation on the shortness of life. These kinds of understanding can arise even when one has not listened to the Dhamma. When one has studied the Dhamma there can be intellectual understanding about ultimate realities, about kamma and vipāka, about nāmas and rūpas which can be experienced through six doors, and, when understanding develops further there can be direct understanding of ultimate realities, of nāma and rūpa. Direct understanding of realities can develop to the highest wisdom which eradicates all defilements.”

—Nina van Gorkom, Cetasikas (Zolag, 2010)

R