On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
User avatar
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás

Post by Eko Care »

On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás
Cambridge University Press Stable (1871)
By the Mudliar L. Comrilla Vijasinha, Government Interpreter to the Ratnapura Court, Ceylon.
With an Introduction by R. C. Childers, late of the Ceylon Civil Service.


Introduction By R. C. Childers:

About eighteen months ago I was engaged in preparing an edition of Brahmajála Sutta, and of Buddhaghosa's com-mentary upon it which forms the first section of the Sumańgala Vilásiní. Buddhaghosa's commentary upon Brahmajála Sutta is one of the most important of his writings, since it contains a detailed account of the First General Council, held immediately after Buddha's death for the purpose of settling the text of the Buddhist Scriptures. Intending to publish this work in the same volume with the Brahmajála which it comments upon, I began, and made considerable progress with, a translation of it. At the very outset I met with a difficulty, in the shape of an historical statement in Buddhaghosa's introductory verses which seemed in the highest degree improbable and untrustworthy. The first ten stanzas of the introduction run as follows: -
.....
"The commentary, I say, upon this Scripture was at the first Council rehearsed by five hundred holy elders, and in later times rehearsed again and yet again."
.....
We find here a distinct statement that a commentary on that portion of the Buddhist Canon which contains the Brahmajála was rehearsed, and its text settled, at the First Council; so that, unless some explanation of the passage be found, we must suppose that Buddhaghosa, the Augustine of Buddhist divines, believed that a commentary on Buddha's sermons actually existed during Buddha's lifetime, and that its text was settled immediately after his death.
After vainly endeavouring to solve the problem, I wrote to my friend Mr. J. F. Dickson, of the Ceylon Civil Service, and asked him whether he could obtain for me from any of his native friends a satisfactory, or at any rate a probable, explanation of the difficulty. After a long delay I received from Mr. Dickson, on the 15th of April, a paper on this subject by a Simhalese native gentleman which seemed to me so able and scholar-like, that, although it was only intended for my perusal, I lost no time in obtaining permission to publish it in this Journal.


By the Mudliar L. Comrilla Vijasinha:

It must be admitted that the point raised by Mr. Childers is one of grave importance as affecting the credibility of Buddhaghosa and the authenticity of all the commentaries on the Tipitaka. From a missionary point of view, the astounding statement that a commentary on Buddha's discourses existed during his lifetime, and was rehearsed along with those discourses at the First Great Council, appears so improbable and unnatural as at once to justify one in discrediting the testimony; and I doubt not that missionary orientalists will hail the discovery as a valuable addition to their stock of arguments against the genuineness and authenticity of the Buddhist Scriptures.

Indeed I found it difficult at first to obtain the opinions of some of my learned friends of the Buddhist priesthood on this point, as they seemed to regard it as another thunderbolt intended to be levelled against their religion by some enthusiastic missionary ; and it was only after explaining to them the object of the inquiry, and the literary character of the gentleman who started the apparent difficulty, that I could induce them to look the question fairly in the face.

I am glad to say that most of my clerical Buddhist friends with whom I have consulted on this subject agree with me on the necessity of giving a wider and more extended signification than is generally allowed to the word Atthakathá as applied by Buddhaghosa in the passage cited.

The word, as is well known, is compounded of two terms, attha, “meaning,” and katha, “a statement, explanation, or narrative,” the dental t being changed to the cerebral by a latitude in the rules of permutation. The literal meaning of the compound term would thus amount to simply “an explanation of meaning.” Taking this wider sense of the word as a basis for the solution of the problem, I think the statement of Buddhaghosa in his preface to the commentary on the Dígha Nikáya is not so hopelessly irreconcilable with probable and presumable facts as would at first sight appear.

On a careful perusal of the two accounts given by Buddhaghosa of the proceedings of the three famous Councils in the Sumańgala Vilásiní and the Samanta Pásádiká, this view will, I think, be found to be very reasonable. It must be admitted that no actual commentary, in the sense that the westerns attach to that term, and like that which has been handed down to us by Buddhaghosa, existed either in the lifetime of Buddha or immediately after his death. The reasons adduced by Mr. Childers, apart from others that can easily be added, against such a supposition, are overwhelmingly convincing. But if we suppose that by the word Atthakathá in his preface Buddhaghosa only meant to convey the idea that at the various Councils held for the purpose of collocating the discourses and sayings of Buddha, the meanings to be attached to different terms (-chiefly those that appear to have been borrowed from the Hindu system of ascetic philosophy-) were discussed and properly defined, then the difficulty of conceiving the contemporaneous existence of the commentaries and the Pitakas would be entirely removed.

The proceedings of this Council appear to have been conducted in a very orderly and systematic manner, which is the more surprising when we consider that monastic autocracy was about to give place to a form of church government prescribed by the great Founder himself, but which was now to be established and tested for the first time. Mahá Kassapa, whom Buddha indirectly indicated as his equal in point of superhuman mental acquirements, assumed the office of Moderator, and by the unanimous consent of the synod Upáli was elected as the best qualified of their order to repeat the Vinaya, and Ānanda the Dhamma ; the Council having previously decided that the Vinaya was the most material for the permanence of Buddhism. Now it is important to observe that the catechetical form was used in the collocation of both the Laws and Doctrines.
.......
When he came to Ceylon for the purpose of translating the Simhalese commentaries, he found a great many extant at that time, and out of these commentaries, embracing no doubt various shades of opinion, and representing different schools of thought, he had to expunge, abridge, enlarge, and make a new commentary. Now how could he do all this, and at the same time preserve undiminished among future generations the same reverence and authority in which the older commentaries were held by the Buddhists of that age? The thought struck him, as no doubt it would strike any careful reader of the Buddhist Scriptures, that a large portion of the writings contained in that canon appear to be explanations and definitions of terms used by Buddha, and also that a great many discourses said to have been delivered by Buddha to certain individuals have not been recorded.

Now what more easy to conceive, or what more probable, than that they formed the nucleus of matter for the formation of a commentary, and that at the First General Council, which lasted seven months, the elders, who had all seen and heard Buddha, should have discussed them, and decided on the method of interpreting and teaching the more recondite portions of Buddhist philosophy ?
.....
"The Dhamma, as well as the Vinaya, was declared by Buddha,
his (sacerdotal) sons understood it in the same sense as it was delivered ;

and in as much as in former times they (the Simhalese commentators) composed the commentaries
without disregarding their (the sacerdotal sons') opinions, therefore,
barring any error of transcription, every-thing contained therein is an authority
to the learned in this priesthood who respect ecclesiastical discipline. "
[[Samantapasadika]]
......
The glossarists (authors of the Tíkáš) give but a very imperfect account of these works. However, it will be well to hear what they say of them: - Mahá atthakathá náma pathama - mahásaňgiti-árulhá mahákassapapamukhehi therehi kata mahá - mahindena ánetvá Síhalabhásáya katá mahá- atthakathá náma játá , " Mahá Atthakathá is evidently what was gathered in the first great Council. It was made by the elders, with Kassapa as their chief. Having been brought by Mahá Mahinda, and converted into the Simhalese language, it was called Mahá Atthakathá." It is clear, therefore, that this is the same commentary (i atthakathá ) referred to by Buddhaghosa in his Sumańgala Yilásiní.

In his introduction to the Samanta Pásádiká, Buddhaghosa uses the following words: "The Dhamma as well as the Yinaya was declared by Buddha, his sacerdotal sons under- stood it in the same sense as it was delivered ; and, inasmuch as in former times they (i.e. the Simhalese commentators) made the commentaries without rejecting their (i.e. Buddha's immediate disciples') opinions, therefore, etc." This passage will, I think, explain the sense in which he uses the word Atthakathá in his preface to the Suman gala Yilásiní. For two things are clearly deducible from the passage, viz., that when Buddhaghosa speaks of the Atthakathá that existed in the earliest days of Buddhism, and almost contemporaneously with Buddha, he only refers to the method of explaining and interpreting the Buddhist Scriptures adopted by Buddha's immediate disciples, and also that Mahinda was not the sole composer of the commentaries, but that there were others who, either jointly with Mahinda or separately, composed comments on the Sacred Canon.

One of the glossarist s in expounding this passage takes a very sensible view of the matter. His words are : - Buddhena dhammo vinayo ca vutto ti palito ca atthato ca buddhena bhagavatá vutto , na hi bhaga- vatá avyákatam tantipadam atthi , sabbesam yeva attho kathito , tasmá sammásambuddhen èva tiņņarņ pitakánam atthavaņņanak - kamo pi bhásito ti datthabbam , tatt/ia tattha bhagavatá pavattitá pakinnakadesaná yeva hi atthakathá , " The Dhamma as well as the Yinaya was declared by Buddha ; that is, it was declared by the blessed Buddha in words as in sense, for there is not one scriptural term which has not been defined by the Blessed One : the sense of all words has been truly expounded. . Therefore it should be borne in mind that it is by the all- perfect Buddha himself that even the method of interpreting the three Pitakas has been propounded. In fact, the de- sultory discourses made by the Blessed One here and there, are what is meant by the word Atthakathá." My view of this subject therefore receives additional weight from the exposition given of Buddhaghosa's meaning by his glossarist. Nor will this view receive less support from collateral facts connected with the life and ministry of the "Great Sage," who gave to the world a creed that has stood the test of time and the progress of the human intellect during upwards of twenty- four centuries.

He renounced the world and all its pleasures in the vigour of life, being then in his twenty-ninth year, passed his days for six long years in a wilderness, subjecting his delicate frame to a severe course of mortification and penance, and at length, receiving the light of that philosophy by which he thought himself capable of explaining all the mysteries of nature, he entered upon a career of religious reformation which lasted for forty-five years. During this long period of uninterrupted labour, he not only preached and argued and conversed and travelled, but also legislated, and gave to his disciples a code of monastic discipline surpassed by no other system of monachism either in the East or West. Can it be imagined then that the Tipitaka contains all the words of Buddha? Undoubtedly not. To the followers of that faith it may contain " all that is necessary to salvation," but it assuredly does not record all and everything done and spoken by this almost superhuman intellect. If John could say of the pious Nazarene of Judaea that if all the things he had done should be written every one, the world itself could not contain the books, what length of hyperbole must be used in reference to the doings and sayings of the great philosopher and teacher of India, whose term of unremitted labour so greatly exceeded that of Jesus of Nazareth?

L. Comrilla Vijasinha. Ratnapura, Feb. 21, 1871.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás

Post by DooDoot »

Eko Care wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:42 pm
At the very outset I met with a difficulty, in the shape of an historical statement in Buddhaghosa's introductory verses which seemed in the highest degree improbable and untrustworthy. The first ten stanzas of the introduction run as follows: -
.....
"The commentary, I say, upon this Scripture was at the first Council rehearsed by five hundred holy elders, and in later times rehearsed again and yet again."
.....
We find here a distinct statement that a commentary on that portion of the Buddhist Canon which contains the Brahmajála was rehearsed, and its text settled, at the First Council; so that, unless some explanation of the passage be found, we must suppose that Buddhaghosa, the Augustine of Buddhist divines, believed that a commentary on Buddha's sermons actually existed during Buddha's lifetime, and that its text was settled immediately after his death.

It must be admitted that the point raised by Mr. Childers is one of grave importance as affecting the credibility of Buddhaghosa and the authenticity of all the commentaries on the Tipitaka. From a missionary point of view, the astounding statement that a commentary on Buddha's discourses existed during his lifetime, and was rehearsed along with those discourses at the First Great Council, appears so improbable and unnatural as at once to justify one in discrediting the testimony; and I doubt not that missionary orientalists will hail the discovery as a valuable addition to their stock of arguments against the genuineness and authenticity of the Buddhist Scriptures.
What is the point of the above & the rest of this onerous article, which appears merely the speculative views of various laymen? :shrug:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
DooDoot wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 3:19 am What is the point of the above & the rest of this onerous article? :shrug:
That's a good point.
Terms of Service - 4 wrote:Since you are not here alone, new topics should invite discussion via questions, suggestions, an introduction, or provide appropriate context.
This is a discussion forum - not a library.

:thanks:

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás

Post by DooDoot »

Eko Care wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:42 pm
Brahmajála Sutta, and of Buddhaghosa's com-mentary upon it which forms the first section of the Sumańgala Vilásiní. Buddhaghosa's commentary upon Brahmajála Sutta is one of the most important of his writings, since it contains a detailed account of the First General Council, held immediately after Buddha's death for the purpose of settling the text of the Buddhist Scriptures.
The above opinion of an obscure author sound confusing to me, in that it says the commentary of DN 1 is important for its commentary on the First General Council. What does the the First General Council have to do with the Brahmajála Sutta? :shrug:

Therefore, what is this topic about? The First General Council? Or the Brahmajála Sutta? :shrug:

Also, the Brahmajála Sutta appears very straightforward. While i have not read it all carefully and probably never will, the more supramundane parts of it i have read (about eternalism, annihilationism, nibbana, etc) and found it very straightforward.

So what did Buddhaghosa's commentary upon the Brahmajála Sutta itself actually say in addition to what is in the actual sutta? Or is my question off-topc because the topic is about the First General Council? :shrug: Thanks :smile:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás

Post by robertk »

The Commentary to the Brahmajala sutta is most excellent - translated by B. Bodhi as The All embracing net of views.
However I think it is the atthakattha to the Dhammasangani (first book of the Abhidhamma) the Atthasalini, (from the introductory discourse) where it is explained that the Commentary dates from first council:

“The ancient commentary therof was sang By the First council, Mahakassapa Their leader, and later again by seers, Mahinda bought it to the peerless isle, Ceylon,…” endquote
User avatar
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Re: On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás

Post by Eko Care »

new topics should invite discussion via questions, suggestions, an introduction, or provide appropriate context.
It was a mistake forgetting it.

Anyway, Please pay attention to the point the author raised.

Since he was not a traditional one, even the less-tradional people can pay attention.
Cilders says:
a paper on this subject by a Simhalese native gentleman which seemed to me so able and scholar-like, that, although it was only intended for my perusal, I lost no time in obtaining permission to publish it in this Journal.
Then the author Comrilla Vijasinha says:
It must be admitted that the point raised by Mr. Childers is one of grave importance as affecting the credibility of Buddhaghosa and the authenticity of all the commentaries on the Tipitaka. From a missionary point of view, the astounding statement that a commentary on Buddha's discourses existed during his lifetime, and was rehearsed along with those discourses at the First Great Council, appears so improbable and unnatural as at once to justify one in discrediting the testimony; and I doubt not that missionary orientalists will hail the discovery as a valuable addition to their stock of arguments against the genuineness and authenticity of the Buddhist Scriptures.
So this is of grave importance.
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6492
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás

Post by Dhammanando »

DooDoot wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 3:39 am The above opinion of an obscure author sound confusing to me, in that it says the commentary of DN 1 is important for its commentary on the First General Council. What does the the First General Council have to do with the Brahmajála Sutta? :shrug:
At the beginning of the Dīgha Commentary there is first the Ganthārambhakathā, the author's opening verses, then the Nidānakathā, a prose preface, and then begins the Brahmajālasuttavaṇṇanā, the commentary to the Brahmajālasutta. The account of the first three councils is given in the Nidānakathā.

In some editions of the commentary, however, the title Brahmajālasuttavaṇṇanā comes immediately after the Ganthārambhakathā, while the title Nidānakathā is missing, giving the impression that the account of the councils is part of the Brahmajālasutta commentary. Presumably Childers was working with an edition of this sort.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás

Post by DooDoot »

Eko Care wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:47 pm So this is of grave importance.
Why? Thanks
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás

Post by DooDoot »

robertk wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 9:37 am The Commentary to the Brahmajala sutta is most excellent - translated by B. Bodhi as The All embracing net of views.
Thank you Robert. The All-Embracing of Net of Views by Bhikkhu Bodhi
Dhammanando wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 7:24 pm the commentary to the Brahmajālasutta.
So if i am reading correctly:

1. The main commentary was composed by Bhadantācariya Buddhaghosa (early fifth century C.E.)

2. The subcommentary was composed by Ācariya Dhammapāla of Badaratittha (perhaps 6th century).

3. A new subcommentary (abhinavaṭīkā) was composed in the late eighteenth century by the Burmese Mahāthera Nāṇābhivaṃsa.

Is this so? Thank you
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás

Post by DooDoot »

Eko Care wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:47 pm Brahmajála Sutta, and of Buddhaghosa's com-mentary
My impression is there is conflicting or otherwise incomplete interpretations within these commentaries.

For example, Buddhaghosa wrote, which appears to not directly follow the terminology in DN 1:
CY. There are two types of people who hold the annihilationist view, the possessor (of the divine eye) and the non-possessor. The possessor adopts the annihilationist view when, with the divine eye, he perceives the passing away of an arahat without seeing any rebirth, or when he perceives the mere passing away (of others) without seeing their rebirth. The non-possessor adopts the annihilationist view because he does not know of any world beyond, or because he is greedy for sense pleasures, or by way of reasoning, e.g., as follows: “Beings are just like leaves which fall from a tree and never grow again.”

CY. The seven annihilationist views arise on account of craving and views, in one way or another or by proceeding eclectically

page 183 & 185 https://www.bps.lk/olib/bp/bp209s-Bodhi ... -Views.pdf
Then Ācariya Dhammapāla wrote, which appears to directly follow the terminology in DN 1 (and prerequisite suttas such as SN 23.2 & SN 5.10):
Sub.Cy. Since the destruction of the non-existent (asato) is impossible, the words “(annihilation) of an existent being” (sato sattassa ucchedaṃ) are used, signifying annihilation based on existence (atthibhāvanibandhano upacchedo). The word “being” is used in order to show the following.... For the assumption of a being arises when the compact of aggregates occurring in the form of a continuum is not dissected (into its components). And since it is held that “the self exists so long as it is not annihilated,” the assumption of annihilationism is based on the assumption of the existence of a being

page 183 & 184 https://www.bps.lk/olib/bp/bp209s-Bodhi ... -Views.pdf
Then the 3rd commentator expresses the common contemporary view that appears to contradict DN 1 itself:
N.Sub.Cy. “In one way”: in the way stated by the example of the possessor (of the divine eye) who does not see the re-arising of an arahat, etc. “Or another”: in some other way, since they originate through numerous modes of reasoning. “Or by proceeding eclectically”: these views also arise in the case of the possessor through reasoning when he does not see any being re-arise following its passing away.

Page 185: https://www.bps.lk/olib/bp/bp209s-Bodhi ... -Views.pdf
Therefore, of the above three commentaries, it appears only Ācariya Dhammapāla closely follows DN 1; while Mahāthera Nāṇābhivaṃsa appears to assert the very "being" ("satta") DN 1 is negating as a "wrong view"; while Buddhaghosa appears to say nothing compelling or otherwise appears to also assert "a being" whose rebirth an annihilationist denies.

My impression is Buddhaghosa has convoluted the mundane view of what a moral nihilist (natthikavāda) is, as found in MN 60, with the supramundane view of what an annihilationist (ucchedavāda) is, as found in DN 1. This convolution of Buddhaghosa appears to characterise the common doctrines of contemporary Theravada; where most Theravada Buddhist regard natthikavāda & ucchedavāda as the same doctrine.

To conclude & returning to topic, it appears the commentary presented by Buddhaghosa about DN 1 could not have existed during the Buddha's lifetime because Buddhaghosa's commentary appears somewhat contrary to what was taught in DN 1. :smile:

While the main quote in the OP appears to be papanca to me, it appears the respective authors in the OP have not even discerned the commentary, subcommentary and addition commentary might have conflicting interpretations of DN 1.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás

Post by robertk »

DooDoot wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:09 pm
robertk wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 9:37 am The Commentary to the Brahmajala sutta is most excellent - translated by B. Bodhi as The All embracing net of views.
Thank you Robert. The All-Embracing of Net of Views by Bhikkhu Bodhi
Dhammanando wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 7:24 pm the commentary to the Brahmajālasutta.
So if i am reading correctly:

1. The main commentary was composed by Bhadantācariya Buddhaghosa (early fifth century C.E.)

2. The subcommentary was composed by Ācariya Dhammapāla of Badaratittha (perhaps 6th century).

3. A new subcommentary (abhinavaṭīkā) was composed in the late eighteenth century by the Burmese Mahāthera Nāṇābhivaṃsa.

Is this so? Thank you
Yes.
In recognition of the cardinal importance of the Brahmajāla a
bulky exegetical literature has built up around it, including a lengthy
and fuller revised subcommentary. The commentary to the sutta is
included in the Sumaṅgalavilāsiṇī, the complete commentary or
aṭṭhakathā to the Dīgha Nikāya. This was composed by the great
Indian commentator, Bhadantācariya Buddhaghosa (early fifth century
C.E.), on the basis of the ancient commentaries, no longer extant,
which he edited and fused into the single uniform text that has come
down to us in the present day. The commentary has been provided
vi The All-Embracing Net of Views
with a subcommentary or ṭīkā by Ācariya Dhammapāla of Badaratittha
(perhaps 6th century). The purpose of this latter work is twofold: first,
to explicate the difficult terms and knotty points occurring in the commentary;
and second, to examine in greater detail the positions set
forth in the sutta, investigating their rationale, implications, possible
objections, etc. In fact, the most valuable and interesting part of the
ṭīkā is its “examinations” or vicāraṇa, which are usually set out in the
form of a question or objection followed by a lengthy reply or defense.
But the original subcommentary is often rather terse in its manner of
expression, or excessively complex in its chains of argumentation,
which makes the exact meaning of the passage sometimes difficult to
discern. To rectify this defect, a new subcommentary (abhinavaṭīkā) to
the first part of the Dīgha Nikāya was composed in the late eighteenth
century by the Burmese Mahāthera Nāṇābhivaṃsa. This revised work,
named Sādhuvilāsinī, largely reproduces the content of the standard
subcommentary, but expands and elaborates it for the sake of greater
clarity, adding elucidating remarks where required.
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás

Post by robertk »

DooDoot wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:37 pm
To conclude & returning to topic, it appears the commentary presented by Buddhaghosa about DN 1 could not have existed during the Buddha's lifetime because Buddhaghosa's commentary appears somewhat contrary to what was taught in DN 1. :smile:

While the main quote in the OP appears to be papanca to me, it appears the respective authors in the OP have not even discerned the commentary, subcommentary and addition commentary might have conflicting interpretations of DN 1.
Ok , I don't see any conflict at all and I feel the texts are beautifully explained.
User avatar
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Re: On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás

Post by Eko Care »

I invite many of you to read the commentary before commenting.
robertk wrote: Ok , I don't see any conflict at all and I feel the texts are beautifully explained.
About the authenticity, one may start to think like this, if he has read it.
Now what more easy to conceive, or what more probable, than that they formed the nucleus of matter for the formation of a commentary, and that at the First General Council, which lasted seven months, the elders, who had all seen and heard Buddha, should have discussed them, and decided on the method of interpreting and teaching the more recondite portions of Buddhist philosophy ?
User avatar
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Re: On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás

Post by Eko Care »

“The ancient commentary thereof was sang By the First council,
Mahakassapa Their leader, and later again by seers, …”
The most annoying song for some.
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás

Post by Ontheway »

I hope all Atthakatha books available in English....

Sometimes when I read the commentaries I learned more than just the surface or plain reading of Suttas. After reading commentaries, one can understand how deep and meaningful Suttas can be.
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
Post Reply