What is Atthakatha (commentaries) and who initiate them?

[SarathW]

What is Atthakatha (commentaries) and who initiate them?
What qualify as Atthakata?
For example, if someone makes a commentary on Sutta in Dhamma Wheel, Whether we agree or not, can we consider it as Attha Katha.

[robertk]

Buddhaghosa primarily, and Dhammapala.
IB Horner, PALI TEXT SOCIETY, writes
""The prime object of every Commentary is to make the meanings of the words and
phrases in the canonical passages it is elucidating abundantly clear, definite, definitive even....This is to preserve the Teachings of the Buddha as nearly as possible in the sense intended, and as conveyed by the succession of teachers, acariyaparama. Always there were detractors, always there were and still are "improvers" ready with their own notions. Through friends and enemies alike deleterous change and deterioration in the word of the Buddha might intervene for an indefinite length of time. The Commentaries are the armour and protection against such an eventuality. AS they hold a unique position as preservers and interpreters of true Dhamma, it is essential not only to follow them carefully and adopt the meaning they ascribe to a word or phrase each time they commnet on it. They are as closed now as is the Pali canon. No aditions to their corpus or subtractions from it are to contemplated, and no commentary written in later days could be included in it.""endquote Horner. pxiii Clarifier of the Sweet Meaning" PAli Text Society 1978

[Ontheway]

What is Atthakatha (commentaries) and who initiate them?
What qualify as Atthakata?
For example, if someone makes a commentary on Sutta in Dhamma Wheel, Whether we agree or not, can we consider it as Attha Katha.

1) What is Atthakatha (commentaries) and who initiate them?

Atthakatha is a Pali Tipitaka reading guide or commentary, it gives the background stories, acts as a dictionary for certain words, and detailed information on events. Originally compiled by the Arahants (as indicated in Atthasalini), brought over to Sri Lanka by Arahat Mahinda Thera and established at Mahavihara, then was translated into Sinhalese and known as Maha-atthakatha. Later, Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera translated them back into Magadhi language (Saka Nirutti).

2) What qualify as Atthakata?

I supposed only the explanations spoken by Arahants or verified by Arahants while not contradicting with Mahāpadesa were qualified.

3) For example, if someone makes a commentary on Sutta in Dhamma Wheel, Whether we agree or not, can we consider it as Attha Katha.

It will not be included in official Atthakatha. Since official original Atthakatha were the words of Arahants, though later was translated into Sinhalese and back again into Pali with the help of Ven. Buddhaghosa Thera, approved by Mahaviharavasins. No other books than these will be considered as official Atthakatha. Visuddhimagga is an exception because it was stated that in the Digha Nikaya Atthakatha book "Sumangalavilasini", that many crucial Dhamma points found in the original commentary were written in Visuddhimagga and to be used alongside with Atthakatha Pali translation. Therefore, those points will not be repeated again in the Atthakatha
Pali translation.

However, other books such as Abhidhamattha Sangaha and Nibbana Dipani by later generation will still be regarded as useful study materials.

[SarathW]

Thanks Onthe way.
So Atthakatha is older than Abhidhamma?
How come Sutta pitaka survied in Pali not Atthakatha? (Hence Buddhagosha has to translate it in to Pali)
It is interesting to note that Atthakatha was brought to Sri Lanka by Ven. Mahinda.

[Ontheway]

Thanks Onthe way.
So Atthakatha is older than Abhidhamma?
How come Sutta pitaka survied in Pali not Atthakatha? (Hence Buddhagosha has to translate it in to Pali)
It is interesting to note that Atthakatha was brought to Sri Lanka by Ven. Mahinda.

Western scholars often said Abhidhamma was a later development. That's their conclusion.

But if we see Theravada history, Abhidhamma was also recited in First Council, so literally Sutta, Vinaya, Abhidhamma were all concluded during that Council. Hence, 84000 Dhammakkhandha as noticed by Venerable Ananda Thera.

"How come Sutta pitaka survied in Pali not Atthakatha? (Hence Buddhagosha has to translate it in to Pali)"

I think it has to do with Sanghabheda and flourishing of Adhamma in ancient India. More and more people rejecting the original explanation and start making their own interpretation on Pali Suttas. That's why Atthakatha is gradually losing its position in Buddhism studies and finally all lost after the Third Council of Arahants. But since Arahant Mahinda Thera previously brought original one to Sri Lanka, hence it was preserved by Mahaviharavasins and remained intact. But in order to facilitate Sinhalese people's learning process, Sri Lankan Theras translated the Atthakatha to Sinhalese. This is how I understand the development of it.

[SarathW]

But since Arahant Mahinda Thera previously brought original one to Sri Lanka, hence it was preserved by Mahaviharavasins and remained intact. But in order to facilitate Sinhalese people's learning process, Sri Lankan Theras translated the Atthakatha to Sinhalese. This is how I understand the development of it.

What I don't understand is why Buddhagosha has to translate it into Pali. The question is how Pali Sutta survied in Sri Lanka while the Pali Atthakata lost until Buddhagosha re translate it in to Pali.

[Ontheway]

But since Arahant Mahinda Thera previously brought original one to Sri Lanka, hence it was preserved by Mahaviharavasins and remained intact. But in order to facilitate Sinhalese people's learning process, Sri Lankan Theras translated the Atthakatha to Sinhalese. This is how I understand the development of it.

What I don't understand is why Buddhagosha has to translate it into Pali. The question is how Pali Sutta survied in Sri Lanka while the Pali Atthakata lost until Buddhagosha re translate it in to Pali.

When the Elder Revata saw that, he said, ‘Here only the text has been preserved. There is no commentary here, and likewise no Teachers’ Doctrine; for that has been allowed to go to pieces and is no longer known.
However, a Sinhalese commentary still exists, which is pure. It was rendered into the Sinhalese tongue by the learned Mahinda with proper regard for the way of commenting that was handed down by the three Councils as taught by the Enlightened One and inculcated by Sáriputta and others. Go there, and after you have learnt it translate it into the language of the Magadhans.
That will bring benefit to the whole world.’ As soon as this was said, he made up his mind to set out.
“He came from there to this island in the reign of this king (Mahánáma). He came to the (Great Monastery , the monastery of all true men. There he stayed in a large workroom, and he learnt the whole Sinhalese Commentary of the Elders’ Doctrine (theraváda) under Saòghapála.12 He decided, ‘This alone is the intention of the Dhamma’s Lord.’ So he assembled the Community there and asked, ‘Give me all the books to make a commentary .’ Then in order to test him the Community gave him two stanzas, saying ‘Show your ability with these; when we have seen that you have it, we will give you all the books.’ On that text alone he summarized the three Piþakas together with the Commentary as an epitome, which was named the Path of Purification (Visuddhimagga). Then, in the precincts of the (sapling of the) Enlightenment Tree (in Anurádhapura), he assembled the Community expert in the Fully Enlightened One’s system, and he began to read it out. In order to demonstrate his skill to the multitude deities hid the book, and he was obliged to prepare it a second time, and again a third time. When the book was brought for the third time to be read out, the gods replaced the other two copies with it.
Then the bhikkhus read out the three copies together, and it was found that there was no difference between the three in either the chapters or the meaning or the order of the material or the phrases and syllables of the Theraváda texts.
With that the Community applauded in high delight and again and again it was said, ‘Surely this is (the Bodhisatta) Metteyya.’ “They gave him the books of the three Piþakas together with the Commentary . Then, while staying undisturbed in the Library Monastery , he translated the Sinhalese Commentary into the Magadhan language, the root-speech of all, by which he brought benefit to beings of all tongues. The teachers of the Elders’ Tradition accepted it as equal in authority with the texts themselves. Then, when the tasks to be done were finished, he went back to Jambudìpa to pay homage to the Great Enlightenment Tree.

This is the background story of it, from the Introduction section in Bhikkhu Nanamoli's Visuddhimagga translation.

I think Arahant Revata Thera wanted Ven. Buddhaghosa to do so because Sinhalese language is constantly changing and evolving, thus not able to preserve the essence of Dhamma to its pristine condition (similar to English, Chinese language, Tibetan language, Thai language etc.). Arahant Revata Thera wanted the Atthakatha restored to its former glory, using Saka Nirutti (Magadhi language) that was confirmed and used by the Buddha. Such language can preserve the essence and meaning of Pali Suttas for a long time.

[SarathW]

One of the Sri Lankan monks mentioned that the Atthakatha was also initiated by Buddha.

[Coëmgenu]

Thanks Onthe way.
So Atthakatha is older than Abhidhamma?
How come Sutta pitaka survied in Pali not Atthakatha? (Hence Buddhagosha has to translate it in to Pali)
It is interesting to note that Atthakatha was brought to Sri Lanka by Ven. Mahinda.

The commentaries are very old. How old? No scholar knows for certain. There is a scarcity of evidence. Ven Buddhaghosa, often credited with "writing" the commentaries, instead is more of an editor and a compiler. He translated the old Prākrit commentaries into a mildly Sanskritized language that we now call "Pāli."

Source here:

Note, the above link does not establish Ven Buddhaghosa as the Sanskritizer, but does establish the Pāli scriptures to be partially and irregularly Sanskritized. We know that the old commentaries were in a Prākrit called "Eḷu" that is very close to, but isn't exactly, Pāli and that Ven Buddhaghosa, a northerner from Magadha, translated them into Pāli. From this, one can tentatively suggest that "Pāli" is likely either a Sanskritized form of Eḷu Prākrit, or is halfway between Sanskritized Magadhan Buddhist Prākrit and the old Eḷu, or is entirely a partially Sanskritized Prākrit from Magadhi that Ven Buddhaghosa was familiar with.

[SarathW]

Interestingly I have heard some people say that the Sinhalese language is Helu or Elu language.

[Coëmgenu]

Elu is a very ancient form of Sinhala. If you heard it spoken, you'd likely think it was a different language, but they are related.

[Coëmgenu]

Just in case my memory failed me and Mark Allon does not discuss the partial Sanskritization of Pāli in the above lecture, you can find it substantiated by Ven Bodhi on p. 10 of In the Buddha's Words.

[Coëmgenu]

Also, contradicting my earlier tentative suggestion based solely on the birthplace of Ven Buddhaghosa, KR Norman argues in A Philological Approach to Buddhism that Pāli can't be established to descend from Magadhi. Several scholars cited on the Wikipedia page for "Pāli" argue that Pāli retains features from the northwest of India and not Magadha, but I haven't read their papers yet.

[Coëmgenu]

We know that the old commentaries were in a Prākrit called "Eḷu" that is very close to, but isn't exactly, Pāli and that Ven Buddhaghosa, a northerner from Magadha, translated them into Pāli. From this, one can tentatively suggest that "Pāli" is likely either a Sanskritized form of Eḷu Prākrit, or is halfway between Sanskritized Magadhan Buddhist Prākrit and the old Eḷu, or is entirely a partially Sanskritized Prākrit from Magadhi that Ven Buddhaghosa was familiar with.

Apparently the Pāli Canon is substantiated on the Indian subcontinent in the form of some Nepalese manuscripts. I just learned this. I had thought that the Pāli Canon was only substantiated in Sri Lanka. So we, in which case I refer to people more knowledgeable than me, know that the redaction of the canon is likely to have come from India and not be Sri Lankan, which matches historical accounts in the Vamsas. I'm really showing off my ignorance of Sri Lankan history right now. So maybe the commentaries would have traces of Elu influence, but Pāli itself isn't in any way derived from it.

I will admit that I am biased towards a high diversity of Buddhist Prākrits, since Elu is apparently another, but Pāli is not from the same island. I also should have said "I'm wondering" instead of "we can tentatively suggest that," which seems to give it more weight than it ought to have had.

Sarathw, do you know any sources other than Wikipedia on Elu? How substantiated is it in manuscripts, if at all? If you don't know how to answer this, no worries.

[SarathW]

Pāli Canon was only substantiated in Sri Lanka.

What do you mean by substantiated?
What about Agama parallel etc?