I was able to finally complete the post I wanted to write for this thread but now I’m having troubles positing it because when I try to post it, it says links aren’t allowed to be posted? I do see links being posted in this thread and I tried to look for the formatting options that might allow me to post links but I don’t see the formatting option to do so.
1 Like
Thank you for the welcome RobertK,
After some consideration regardless if the document spoken off authenticating the Abhidhamma is still a work in progress or will ever be completed, I would like to take this opportunity to present some information / findings hoping it can contribute to this topic and help to authenticate the Abhidhamma as the Buddha’s teachings and belongs to the Tipitaka. Like I mentioned, for myself I don’t need any prove or evidence from a scholarly approach to see / believe the Abhidhamma is the Buddha’s teachings and the teachings belongs to the Tipitaka. Others can say or try to proof this or that all they want about the Abhidhamma, but it’s impossible for me not to see / believe the Abhidhamma is the Buddha’s teachings. A few years ago, I was surprised to learn there are Buddhist practitioners out there that don’t believe / view the Abhidhamma as the Buddha’s teachings and even harmfully putting time and effort to discredit the Abhidhamma as the Buddha’s teachings. Even more surprising . . . learned of well known and respected Theravada teachers holding the same views / position and communicating it to their followers. At that time learning of such circumstances, I had thoughts of writing an essay or some sort of writing hoping to piece together what evidence I can find in sutta’s or the Pali Tipitaka to present to others for their consideration especially to those that don’t view the Abhidhamma as the Buddha’s teachings. I had help from a teacher with the endeavor and in fact I believe the strongest finding or evidence found in the sutta’s that can be presented to authenticate the Abhidhamma as the Buddha’s teachings was noticed by the teacher. In the last half of this post, I hope to present these findings for others own use / endeavors and consideration.
" what do you mean by Commentaries outside the Tipitaka?"
Thank you asking for clarification, it helped me to see / realize I might not have been the most clear / concise in what I was trying to express. What I meant by commentaries outside of the Tipitaka are commentaries compiled from the fourth century CE onward like the Visuddhimagga and other commentaries that’s not included in today’s finalized version of the Pali Tipitaka Canon. I’m not sure if others take the three books that are included in some editions of the Khuddaka Nikaya: Nettipakarana, Petakopadesa and Milindapañha as commentaries, but I do take them to be. Even though the Nettipakarana, Petakopadesa and Milindapañha have been added into the Pali Tipitaka at a later time, I take those 3 works to be more authoritative or is the Buddha’s teachings more than any commentaries compiled from the fourth century CE onward. I know Buddhaghosa and the Visuddhimagga are highly revered by many Theravada Buddhist practitioners as well it was mentioned by Robert, “The suttas have a Commentary that was edited mostly by Buddhaghosa - based on ancient Commentaries- and approved by the Sangha. They greatly help in understanding the deep meaning of each sutta.” Thank you for bringing this to my attention as I wasn’t aware of these commentaries that’s based on the sutta’s. Since I have never read them, I can’t comment on them. Some additional information I was able to come across / learn of these commentaries, “Twelve commentaries ascribed to Buddhaghosa: commentary on the Vinaya Pitaka; one each on the Digha Nikaya, Majjhima Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya and Anguttara Nikaya; four on Khuddaka Nikaya books; and three on the Abhidhamma Pitaka.”.
Like I mentioned, I never fully read the Visuddhimagga and only know of the contents / teachings based on what little I have skim through the work and from what other Buddhist practitioners comment on the teachings which was / is more than enough for myself to see, feel and believe that are some major issues / inconsistencies / distortions between the teachings of the Buddha and “some” of the contents / teachings within the Visuddhimagga. It’s impossible for me to believe that “the actual sangha” during that period of time would actually approve and praise the work of the Visuddhimagga. I like to give as much benefit of doubt to others and Buddhaghosa, but his background, the mentioning of Buddhaghosa burning the old Atthakatha’s and other factors / concerns not only relating to Buddhaghosa are questionable / controversial / problematic to me. But it’s not my intention to bring these up in this post. Once again, I would like to make things clear in that I’m not saying everything contained in the Visuddhimagga or other later commentaries are wrong / incorrect or not the Buddha’s teachings nor do I have ill-will towards Buddhaghosa, but once again to me some of the materials / teachings in the commentaries that’s not within the Pali Tipitaka Canon especially relating to the Visuddhimagga are very questionable / controversial and most importantly some of the teachings / instructions are not consistent with my own understanding and practice of the dhamma.
To better make my position more clear in regards to the commentaries. As I was preparing this post, I came across some words from Bhikkhu Bodhi which quite matches my thoughts on the commentaries.
https://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php/Theravada_commentaries#:~:text=The%20Theravada%20Commentaries%2C%20known%20in,traditional%20interpretations%20of%20the%20scriptures.
Two extremes by Bhikkhu Bodhi, Bhikkhu Bodhi from an interview with Inquiring Mind:
"To be brief, I would say there are two extreme attitudes one could take to the commentaries. One, often adopted by orthodox Theravadins, is to regard them as being absolutely authoritative almost on a par with the suttas. The other is to disregard them completely and claim they represent ‘a different take on the Dhamma.’ I find that a prudent middle ground is to consult the commentaries and use them, but without clinging to them. Their interpretations are often (I’ll change the word “often” to “can be”) illuminating, but we should also recognize that they represent a specific systematization of the early teaching. They are by no means necessitated by the early teaching, and on some points even seem to be in tension with it."
Like I mentioned, myself do take “some commentaries” like the Nettipakarana, Petakopadesa and Milindapañha to be quite authoritative. But what’s important (for myself anyways) is to keep an open mind about the different teachings / interpretations / translations we have today on the Buddha dhamma since I am aware and can see how some of the other dhamma teaching materials and commentaries we have today can be of value to one’s learning and practice. But at the same time how some of the teachings / materials / sources / interpretations / translations distorts / misrepresents / misinterprets the Buddha dhamma or the Buddha’s teachings.
Some comments that were mentioned in this thread:
“Sometimes, I feel that it is in vain to convince people about it.”
“Yes, It is somewhat a lost cause for most people”
At times I also have felt and thought the same for those that learn and practice the dhamma while not believing / seeing the Abhidhamma as the Buddha teachings. As well the Buddhist practitioners not seeing / discerning the issues / problems/ inconsistencies / distortions on some of the teachings / translations and interpretations on the Buddha dhamma that’s widely taught and practiced today. What’s fair others might feel and think the same with me, that it’s in vain to convince me and I might be a lost cause. Over the years, my thinking / views / understanding about life, Buddha dhamma and the practice have changed quite dramatically and if I truly spoke my heart to other Buddhist practitioners, monks or everyday people, I can see and understand how others might find it hard to see or even believe some of the things I would say about the Buddha teachings and other mundane / worldly information / education / knowledge that’s been indoctrinated to us ever since we’re born. But regardless what others might think of me or my beliefs / views, it’s my understanding that we shouldn’t completely give up on anyone but at the same time not be emotionally involved or become too attached in trying to change others views and beliefs. It’s my believe we living beings have the potential to change for the better or worse and sometimes it might just not be the right time or conditions coming together for the individual to see and understand certain things or receive the help needed to better their life or make wholesome / skillful changes.
What’s important for my own practice is if I believe there is something I can do, say / share / present to others which can help / benefit them in wholesome ways and especially relating to the Buddha’s teachings, I believe it’s worth the attempt to carry out the thoughts, speech, and actions necessary to do so. With this in mind, I hope the findings / information presented in this post can make a contribution to authenticate the Abhidhamma as the Buddha’s teachings and share some additional information for others consideration especially to those that don’t see / view the Abhidhamma as the Buddha’s teachings.
Over the years having observed various discussions and information / materials on the authentication of the Abhidhamma as the Buddha’s teachings, I hope to present three points that I have observed to be rarely or not been mentioned / discussed and believe can make strong cases to help authenticate the Abhidhamma as the Buddha’s teachings. One of the intentions behind this writing is meant to complement the various sources / materials / information / discussions on the Abhidhamma that has already been presented / available and not meant to discredit other teachings / sources / materials.
The first point being cited from Bhikkhu Bodhi’s “A comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma” is not intended to make a strong case for the Abhidhamma was “unquestionably” expounded by the Buddha as described by Buddhist orthodox sources / materials but hope to show / present there’s a strong case to be made that the Buddha did spend time in the Tavatimsa heaven and on the pandukambala or Sakka’s throne. As for whatever the Buddha did or taught in the Tavatimsa heavens, others are free to come to their own conclusions.
Please note the word “Pandukambala” and “Paricchattaka tree”.
From Bhikkhu Bodhi’s A comprehensive manual of Abhidhamma, “according to this tradition, just prior to his seventh annual rain retreat the Blessed one ascended to the Tavatimsa heaven and there, seated on the PANDUKAMBALA stone at the foot of the Paricchattaka tree, for the three months of the rains he taught the Abhidhamma to the deva’s . . .”
Sakka is the ruler of the Tavatimsa heaven and according to Buddhasasana Concise Pali - English dictionary and other sources, the “Pandukambala” is Sakka’s throne. A reference is made in the Lomasakaṅgiyabhaddekarattasutta (MN 134) of the Buddha having spent time in the Tavatimsa heaven and on the Pandukambala or Sakka’s throne.
https://suttacentral.net/mn134/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=sidebyside&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin
Note the Pali words paṇḍukambalasilāyaṁ and pāricchattakamūle.
“Ekamidaṁ, bhikkhu, samayaṁ bhagavā devesu tāvatiṁsesu viharati pāricchattakamūle paṇḍukambalasilāyaṁ. Tatra bhagavā devānaṁ tāvatiṁsānaṁ bhaddekarattassa uddesañca vibhaṅgañca abhāsi:’
“This one time, the Buddha was staying among the gods of the thirty-three at the root of the Shady Orchid Tree on the stone spread with a cream rug. There he taught the summary recital and the analysis of the one who has one fine night to the gods of the thirty-three:
Something I would like to mention is the translations / interpretations I sometimes use for online discussions doesn’t necessary mean I completely agree with or take them to be definite, but for convenience sake. If others take other translations / interpretations to be more accurate / correct / convincing, I would be open to others translations / interpretations. Going back to the Lomasakaṅgiyabhaddekarattasutta (MN 134), I’m not entire sure if “paṇḍukambalasilāyaṁ” is being translated as “stone spread with a cream rug”, but for myself I take paṇḍukambalasilāyaṁ to mean the same as pandukambala, some form of stone and Sakka’s throne. I don’t claim to be well-versed in the Pali language and need to rely on translations / interpretations from teachers / translators / scholars for my understanding / comprehension of the Pali language. Without the teachers / translators / scholars effort and their well intentions in providing translations / interpretations on the Buddha’s teachings, my learning and practice of the dhamma most likely would not be where it is today. In the process of learning and navigating through the different teachings, translations and interpretations on the Buddha dhamma we have today, my experiences has been some of the translations / interpretations might not always be the most reliable / accurate / definite. As well it’s my believe sometimes further explanation / clarification on some of the words / terms / text can help to bring about a more complete teaching and I would like to take this opportunity to show how sometimes the translations doesn’t give the full complete picture and further research / investigation can be helpful for our learning and understanding.
From https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/pandukambala
Paṇḍukambala refers to: a light red blanket, orange-coloured cloth also a kind of ornamental stone, Sakka’s throne (p. -k. -silā) is made of it.
I’m not sure what "p. -k -silā) represents, but I believe it’s the same silā in “paṇḍukambalasilāyaṁ”.
This is quoted from page 85 The Buddhist Cosmos A Comprehensive Survey of the Early Buddhist Worldview; according to Theravāda and Sarvsātivāda sources*. "*By the power of this kamma, the one hundred yojana high Pāricchattaka Tree appeared inTāvatiṃsa, together with Sakka’s throne, the paṇḍukambalasilā, a huge stone slab described as being under the shade of the great tree."
From https://ancient-buddhist-texts.net/English-Texts/Great-Chronicles/39b.htm
“As for Sakka, he was fearful and despondent, for he would now lose all the greatness of a Sakka: the Tāvatiṁsa Realm, which is 10,000 leagues wide; the Vejayanta palatial mansion that is 1,000 leagues tall; the Sudhammā Assembly Hall, 300 leagues wide, for listening to the Dhamma; the coral tree (paricchattaka) which is 100 leagues high; the Paṇḍukambala stab of emerald, which is 60 leagues long, 50 leagues wide and 15 leagues high;”
Taking the two words paṇḍukambalasilāyaṁ and pāricchattakamūle from the Lomasakaṅgiyabhaddekarattasutta (MN 134) and the commentaries made on them from the last two references, I get the idea that paṇḍukambalasilāyaṁ is sakka’s thorne and it’s “under the shade of the great tree” or the pāricchattakamūle. It’s my belief that another way to explain or interpret the line of “Ekamidaṁ, bhikkhu, samayaṁ bhagavā devesu tāvatiṁsesu viharati pāricchattakamūle paṇḍukambalasilāyaṁ from the Lomasakaṅgiyabhaddekarattasutta (MN 134) can be something along the line of "This one time, the Buddha was staying among the gods of the thirty-three on Sakka’s throne (paṇḍukambalasilāyaṁ) sited at the root of the pāricchattakamūle.There he taught the summary recital and the analysis of the one who has one fine night to the gods of the thirty-three. "
There’s also the mentioning of pandukambala in the Khuddaka Nikāya Milindapañha (KN) and something I am aware of the word “Abhidhamma” used in the sutta’s might not actually mean / represent the same Abhidhamma that is part of the Tipitaka we have today and I would actually agree with those that says or believes so. But in the Milindapañha, it’s my belief the word “Abhidhamma” does mean / represent the Abhidhamma that is part of the Tipitaka we have today. In the past I have observed there’s Buddhist practitioners that don’t take the Milindapañha to be authoritative or as the Buddha’s teachings due to various reasons / arguments the main one being it was later added material which I can understand from their thinking / position. For myself I can’t say I have read over the Milindapanha “very carefully”, but I have gone through it and pretty much everything I can understand from the translations of the work, I don’t see contradictions / inconsistencies comparing to what I understand of the Buddha’s teachings. Anyways . . . from the Milindapanha.
https://suttacentral.net/mil6.4.2/en/tw_rhysdavids?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false
"and again in the heaven of the Thirty-Three at the preaching of the Abhidhamma (abhidhammadesanāya) on the Paṇḍu Kambala Rock eight hundred millions of the gods"
https://suttacentral.net/mil2/en/tw_rhysdavids?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false
Then the venerable Rohaṇa thought thus to himself: ‘In what ought I first to instruct him, in the Discourses (Suttanta) or in the deeper things of the faith (Abhidhamma)?’ and inasmuch as he saw that Nāgasena was intelligent, and could master the Abhidhamma with ease, he gave him his first lesson in that.
And the venerable Nāgasena, after hearing it repeated but once, knew by heart the whole of the Abhidhamma—that is to say, the Dhamma Saṅgaṇi, with its great divisions into good, bad, and indifferent qualities, and its subdivisions into couples and triplets —the Vibhaṅga, with its eighteen chapters, beginning with the book on the constituent elements of beings—the Dhātu Kathā, with its fourteen books, beginning with that on compensation and non-compensation—the Puggala Paññatti, with its six divisions into discrimination of the various constituent elements, discrimination of the various senses and of the properties they apprehend, and so on —the Kathā Vatthu, with its thousand sections, five hundred on as many points of our own views, and five hundred on as many points of our opponents’ views—the Yamaka, with its ten divisions into complementary propositions as to origins, as to constituent elements, and so on—and the Paṭṭhāna, with its twenty-four chapters on the reason of causes, the reason of ideas, and the rest. And he said : ‘That will do, Sir. You need not propound it again. That will suffice for my being able to rehearse it. ’
In the same sutta, it mentions about the 7 books of the Abhidhamma:
Then Nāgasena went to the innumerable company of the Arahats, and said: ‘I should like to propound the whole of the Abhidhamma Piṭaka, without abridgement, arranging it under the three heads of good, bad, and indifferent qualities.’ And they gave him leave. And in seven months the venerable Nāgasena recited the seven books of the Abhidhamma in full
I understand what’s been presented so far to help authenticate the Abhidhamma as the Buddha’s teachings and the teachings belongs to the Tipitaka is not sufficient since myself have taken into account of as many arguments / reasoning I have come across on why the Abhidhdamma is not the Buddha’s teachings, the main one once again being pretty much all the materials / text / commentaries on the Abhidhamma comes from later periods / added materials according to some Buddhist practitioners standards / position / views. The next and second strongest point / reference I can make to authenticate the Abhidhamma as the Buddha’s teachings comes from the Theravada Vinayapitaka but it can also be said the source comes from a later period (later than the 4th council, according to Wikipedia and some scholars . . .) From the Parivāra Samuṭṭhānasīsasaṅkhepa
https://suttacentral.net/pli-tv-pvr3/en/brahmali?lang=en&layout=sidebyside&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin
Sabbasattuttamo sīho,piṭake tīṇi desayi;Suttantamabhidhammañca,vinayañca mahāguṇaṁ.
Please note the words “pitake tini”. Like I mentioned earlier, I haven’t studied or claim to be well-versed in Pali but to me it’s quite obvious what “pitakam tini” means without having to rely on translations or Pali dictionary. What I can see is that Tini means three and pitaka means basket or collections . . . I can say the English translation “three collection or basket” can be open for debate, but for myself, Tini and pitakam together means the Three Basket or the Tipitaka which we have today which includes the Abhidhamma.
Translation by Bhikkhu Brahmali:
The best of all creatures, the lion,Taught the three Collections:The Discourses, and the Philosophy, And the Monastic Law, of great quality.
Translation by I.B. Horner:
The best of all creatures, the lion, taught the three Piṭakas:
The Suttantas, the Abhidhamma, and the Vinaya—a great special quality.
Whom the lion or “siho” is being referred to, it’s the Buddha and one can cross examine this from the sutta’s.
Finally the strongest case I have come across to present that supports the Abhidhamma is the Buddha’s teachings and meant to be part of the Pali Tipitaka we have today is once again found in the Vinayapitaka and if I’m not mistaken, this was recited from the “First Buddhist council” where “pitakam tini” is also cited.
https://suttacentral.net/pli-tv-kd21/en/brahmali?lang=en&layout=sidebyside&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin
"Upāliṁ vinayaṁ pucchi,suttantānandapaṇḍitaṁ;Piṭakaṁ tīṇi saṅgītiṁ,akaṁsu jinasāvakā. "
He asked Upāli about the Monastic Law, And the wise Ānanda about the discourses; Communal recitation of the three Collections, Was done by the disciples of the Victor.
If others take the source to be from the First Buddhist council, last thing I can really say which can be open up for debate is what are the three collections that was communal recited? Or more specifically what was the third collection that was recited since it can be almost universally agreed upon two of the three collections would be the vinaya and suttas. But regardless what other’s views / position is, there’s no doubt for myself one of the three collections would be at least the foundational bases for the writing / teachings of the Abhidhamma we have today. If others try to prove me otherwise, it would be meaningless and makes no difference about my belief and understanding of the Abhidhamma. It’s really no longer my interest in engaging further discussions or wanting to put more time and effort in trying to convince others about the Abhidhamma. I do thank this opportunity where this subject / topic was brought up and where I can just present the information for others to decide on and use. May we all living beings attain the supreme bliss of Nibbana.
1 Like
after a few more posts the system automatically allows members to post links. But I just manually upgraded your membership so you can post links from today.
1 Like
Yes indeed it does refer to the three! Good further evidence.
1 Like
Another good quote.
1 Like
Your findings about Paṇḍu Kambala Rock are very interesting. Thanks!
SuttaCentral
It is great you pointed out this This one time, the Buddha was staying among the gods of the thirty-three at the root of the Shady Orchid Tree on the stone spread with a cream rug.
“Ekamidaṁ, bhikkhu, samayaṁ bhagavā devesu tāvatiṁsesu viharati pāricchattakamūle paṇḍukambalasilāyaṁ.
I recently wrote about the Lomasakaṅgiyabhaddekaratta sutta (MN 134) and its connection to Abhidhamma Lomasakaṅgiyabhaddekaratta sutta (MN 134) and its connection to Abhidhamma
So this long post of yours is very worthy in pointing out these additional connections _ i expect that it will help more people understand that the Abhidhamma was indeed the word of the Buddha.
1 Like
Please start a new topic where we can discuss any areas you doubt in the Vism.
1 Like
“So this long post of yours is very worthy in pointing out these additional connections _ i expect that it will help more people understand that the Abhidhamma was indeed the word of the Buddha.”
I saw the comments posted where others also pointed out the same connections made in my post that came after their post. Regardless of long or short post, the other posts / comments in this thread are worthy since I believe the intention of others and behind the document / writing is wholesome and can be beneficial.
I feel the best way to help someone understand that the Abhidhamma is indeed the word of the Buddha is for that practitioner / individual to see for themselves the connection between the teachings of the Abhidhamma and the sutta’s. I don’t claim to be an Abhidhamma expert or know much about it, but what little I can understand of the Abhidhamma and the teachings of the Buddha or from sutta’s are consistent with each other and the teachings help to supplement / complement each other. That’s why it’s impossible for me not to see the Abhidhamma as the Buddha’s teachings no matter what some scholar or well-known teacher might try to prove or say about the Abhidhamma is not the Buddha’s teachings. It’s like when one see’s / understands for themselves that 1+1 =2, how does one deny that or say it’s wrong? One of the main concerns I have observed from other Buddhist practitioners regarding the Abhidhamma is the concept / teaching on “momentariness” which is said to be invented by later teachings and it’s not in the sutta’s. The thing is . . . the concept / idea of “momentariness” can so easily be proven / shown with simple examples where it isn’t needed to know the Buddha’s or any spiritual teachings, attainment of any supramundane experiences / powers such as jhana’s to be able to see / gain the idea how momentariness takes place in our life.
“Please start a new topic where we can discuss any areas you doubt in the Vism.”
From experience and practice, where I’m currently at there is very little to no motivation / intention for me to go around starting or engaging in discussions with others unnecessarily. For me writing dhamma needs time and energy, being a slow / weak writer and also my past experience and results from seeking discussions with others hardly ever comes to be satisfactory result for some involved including myself. My doubts or what I have to say about the Vism. is not of vital importance for the attainment of nibbana and don’t want to cause unnecessary distractions to others and myself. At the same time it doesn’t necessarily mean I won’t speak up when I feel the appropriate topic / subject, conditions or time to do so. I learned that each of us will always have our own beliefs and views no matter what one says or try prove to us which is totally okay with me because I’m starting to see / understand this is what the world really is and can’t really say I can fault myself or others but avija.
Hoping to learn from past experiences and thinking of what would be most beneficial everyone involved, instead of seeking engagement I feel it’s better to let it discussions come naturally where one makes judgement of the appropriate moment / time / circumstances / conditions to speak or act which I felt when I first came across the topic here. I felt OP had good intentions and it was also once my intention but never got to complete it. The topic here given me the chance to make a contribution to others endeavor and finish what I had intended from before. I find more freedom in keeping an open mind what others say, believe in or teach meaning allowing it to be regardless what my view / opinion / position is on it. I definitely still and will speak when I feel it’s the appropriate topic / subject, timing or conditions to do so. But for the next little while, my attention is required elsewhere to complete / finish what I said to some I would carry out, hoping to keep true to my words. I wish us all living beings all the best and may we all attain the supreme bliss of nibbana.
1 Like
Venerable, the following work might be a good reference:
The Life and Work of Buddhagosa by Bimala Charan Law, MA, BL](Buddhaghosa ရှင်မဟာဗုဒ္ဓဃောသ : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive)
Particularly, the chapter titled “Origin and Development of Buddhist Commentaries.”
But there are many other informative sections as well, such as this account of his meeting with Buddhadatta, found on page 97:
“According to the account given in the Buddhaghosuppatti, Buddhaghosa is said to have sailed for Ceylon after taking his preceptor’s permission the very day that Buddhadatta left Ceylon for Jambudvipa. He was in the ship for three days. Through the supernatural powers of Sakka, the ships of the two theras came in contact with each other. The merchants who were on the vessel of Buddhadatta saw Buddhaghosa and were frightened. Buddhaghosa came out and ’ seeing the merchants frightened, asked, ‘‘ Who is the monk in your ship’’? The merchants replied, ‘‘ Buddhadatta.”’ Buddhadatta then came out and saw the thera and asked his name. Buddhaghosa replied, ‘I am Buddhaghosa.’’ Buddhadatta asked, “Where are you going’? Buddhaghosa replied, “I am going to Ceylon.” Buddhadatta asked, “What’for’’? He replied; “The teaching of the Lord is written in Ceylonese and I am going to render it into Magadhi.’” Buddhadatta said, “‘ I have written Jindlankara, Dantadhatubodhivamsa and not the atthakathads and the tikas ; if you render the teaching of the Lord into Magadhi from Sinhalese, you write out the atthakathas of the three pitakas.’ Thus Buddhadatta gave some task to Buddhaghosa to perform. He also gave him myrobalan, the iron style and a stone, and added, “If you have eye disease or pain in the back, you rub this myrobalan on the stone and apply, surely your pain will disappear.’ Buddhaghosa on his part praised the Jinalankara of Buddhadatta and said, “Your book is very deep, it is difficult for the unwise to understand it.”” Buddhadatta in his turn exhorted Buddhaghosa thus, ‘‘I came to the island of Ceylon before you to write out the teaching of the Lord into Magadhi from Sinhalese. I am short-lived, I won’t live long, you perform the task.” As soon as the conversation ended, the vessel became separated,’ Buddhaghosa sailed for Ceylon and Buddhadatta for Jambudvipa.”
I will post other parts as well as I read more, and as time allows.
Renaldo
Well; this toucheth not upon the essence of the matter (just like many of the other posts here), nor doth it accord with the intent of the original post. Verily, the question at hand demandeth a careful and protracted inquiry. IMO, before Ven. Subhūti proceeds to share anything, given that a considerable portion of the many exegetical passages within the commentaries can be found in the works of other early schools, which they consider canonical, this circumstance alone has established the commentaries, as they have already for decades within academic circles, as one of the cornerstones for the apprehension of early Buddhist taught, and of those ancient materials therein contained—elements which, according to scholars, may be traced to the Second and Third Councils, and to the First as well, albeit with lesser certainty, by the testimony of tradition. This, in turn, makes the narrative of tradition carry great credibility.
Not to mention that these works have not been fully translated into any European language, which has created somewhat of a gap in the aspect of being subjected to serious academic study. Thus, gathering scattered pieces here to write anything will make no significant difference.
Here is an excellent passage about the Commentaries:
“We have now to take into account another class of ancient Buddhist literature, the Poranas, of which our knowledge at present is based only upon some extracts in the Atthakathas. Nandapafifia in his Gandhavatisa refers to the Poranaicariya or the ancient teachers. According to him, the five hundred Arahats who named the five Nikayas, made their meanings and purports, their exposition and correction in the First council as well as the seven hundred Arahats who made their proper interpretation, etc., in the Second council, together with one thousand Arahats who also made their proper interpretation in the Third council, are known as the Poranacariya except Mahakaccayana. It is distinctly stated in the Gandhavatnhsa that those who are the Poranacariya are also the Atthakathacariya or the teachers who wrote the Atthakathas.’ Buddhaghosa speaks of the Porana or the Poranakatthera* as persons who declare that those who observe the precepts will uphold the Buddhasasana or the teaching of the Lord. This is said in connection with those who learn Dhamma from their teachers and maintain the views of their teachers. They do not entertain any dogmatic view of their own.’ These include, according to the Gandhavarisa, the Arahats who took part in the proceedings of the Three Councils and were evidently the earliest contributors to the commentary literature, as the name Atthakathacariya given them by Nandapafifia shows. The Mahatika aiso quotes from a Poranatthakatha as pointed out by Mrs. Rhys Davids.’”
From pages 61 and 62 of The Life and Work of Buddhagosa by Bimala Charan Law, MA, BL](Buddhaghosa ရှင်မဟာဗုဒ္ဓဃောသ : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive)
Renaldo