Fundamentals of the Theravada Doctrine 1

Watagoda Maggavihari Bhikkhu

Lecture 02
The Canon and the Commentarial and Sub-Commentarial
Literature of the Mahāvihāra Tradition

The Canon of the Mahāvihāra Tradition

Nucleus of any Buddhist Tradition is its Canon. In the Tradition of Mahāvihāra, the Canon
is being referred with different terms. The most common phrase used by the Buddha is
Dhammavinaya.1 Here the term Vinaya signifies the code of discipline promulgated by the Buddha
for his monk- and nun-disciples, and the word Dhamma denotes rest of his teachings apart from
Vinaya. Then a nine-fold division of teachings is found in several places of the Canon. They are
Sutta – discourses in prose, Geyya – discourses in prose and verse, Veyyākaraṇa – few expositions,
Gāthā – verses, Udāna – inspired utterances, Itivuttaka – quotations, Jātaka – birth stories, Vedalla
– analysis and Abbhūtadhamma – amazing accounts. 2 A discussion between the Tathāgata
(Buddha) and his chief disciple Sāriputta suggests that a similar classification of teachings existed
even in the dispensations of the Buddhas of antiquity.3 A new grouping of the Canon is mentioned
in the Commentary for Dīgha Nikāya, as first introduced in the earliest Saṅgha-conclave in which
the Buddhist teachings were initially committed to communal recitation. Responsibility of safe
guarding the Buddhist gospel was entrusted upon five groups of monks. This is the first occasion
the term Nikāya, sect or group, was introduced to the Tradition as a mean of grouping the Canon.
As the story goes, Vinaya was handed over to Venerable Upāli and his disciples, Dīgha Nikāya to
Ānanda and his disciples, Majjhima Nikāya to the pupils of Sāriputta, Saṃyutta Nikāya to
Mahākassapa and his disciples and Aṅguttara Nikāya to Anuruddha and his followers. 4
Nevertheless, Norman is doubtful about the legitimacy of the account, and prefers to attribute the
division of Nikāyas to a much later period.5 Somehow, by the time when Venerable Buddhaghosa
was executing his mammoth enterprise of translating the Sinhalese Commentaries into Pali, the
whole Canon then preserved in the Mahāvihāra could be distributed into five Nikāyas, namely,
Fundamentals of the Theravada Doctrine 2

Watagoda Maggavihari Bhikkhu

Digha Nikāya, Majjhima Nikāya, Aṅguttara Nikāya, Saṃyutta Nikāya and Khuddaka Nikāya. Paḷi6
and Buddhavacana were the other two words that were used to refer the Canon. Finally, there is
the threefold grouping, which is the most common in today’s use, categorising the teachings in
terms of three baskets, Tipiṭaka: Vinaya Piṭaka, Suttanta Piṭaka and Abhidhamma Piṭaka.

1. Vinaya Piṭaka is the code of discipline recommended by the Buddha as to be followed by

his monk- and nun-disciples (bhikkhus and bhikkhuṇīs).
1. Suttanta Piṭaka is the collection of discourses preached by the Buddha and some of his
leading disciples in various occasions.
2. Abhidhamma Piṭaka is the teachings which elaborates significant fundamentals and
philosophical tenets of the Buddha’s teachings.7

The Canon was not Fixed at the Beginning

However, it is noteworthy that in order to earn doctrinal status, it means, to be considered
in equal rank with Buddhavacana (words of the Buddha), within Buddhist Traditions, teachings
were not necessarily to have been propounded by the Master (the Buddha) in person. There were
incidents in which the Buddha applauded sermons delivered by some of his prominent disciples to
be absolutely accurate as if those discourses were expounded by him.8 There were no hesitations
to recognise such teachings as a part of the Canon. Suttas lectured by students such as
Mahākaccāyana, Sāriputta, Mahāmoggallāna, Ānanda and even nun Dhammadinnā were included
in the Canon and were considered in equal status with those expounded by the Tathāgata. Some
explanations made by Buddha’s prominent lay devotees, such as Citta the householder, were also
reckoned to be in the same calibre. Such orations of disciples were known as sāvakabhāsita,
discourses uttered by the disciples. With the approval of the Master (Buddha), it was natural, to
rank the discourses of sāvakas with a doctrinal-grade. This approval could be either a formal praise
which was added at the end of the discourse as in the case of Madhupiṇḍika Sutta, Uddesavibhaṅga
Sutta and Cūḷavedalla Sutta or an appreciation made by the Master on learning the news of a new
sāvakabhāsita at a causal gathering of monks who attended him. It is also possible to assume that
even the Buddha’s non-rejection of a sermon delivered by a certain disciple, being aware of its
circulation among the sāvakas, could have been an adequate qualification for it to find a place
within the Canon.
Fundamentals of the Theravada Doctrine 3

Watagoda Maggavihari Bhikkhu

However, sāvakabhāsitas were not necessarily to be delivered while the Buddha was still
alive. There are discourses included in the Canon that were spoken after the Master’s demise, for
instances, Subha Sutta by Venerable Ānanda and Madhura Sutta by Venerable Mahākaccāyana.
The Tradition advocates that the fifth book of the Abhidhamma Piṭaka, Kathāvatthu, was
composed by Elder Moggalīputta Tissa after two centuries from the demise of the Buddha.
Petavatthu, too, contains two stories out of which one is mentioned to had happened after the first
Buddhist council and included into the Canon in the second council9 and other during the reign of
the Emperor Aśoka and inserted into the Canon in the third council.10

Two possible reasons could be postulated for their insertion to the Canon. One being the
great trust vested upon those disciples by the Tradition and more importantly by the Master, while
the other being the alliance of the content of those discourses with the fundamental doctrinal facts
of the Tradition. Most of these illustrious disciples whose discourses won Doctrinal status had
been offered titles by the Master. Their designations can be learned from the Etadaggapāḷi of the
Aṅguttara Nikāya. Nevertheless, the alliance of the essence of those discourses with fundamental
Doctrinal facts of the Tradition seems to be more significant over the reputation a disciple had won
within the fraternity.

Hence the Buddhist Canon was not fixed at earlier stages.

Rupert Gethin mentions that this custom was common in all ancient Buddhist Traditions.

It is clear that from very early date there is a tacit understanding that to claim this
status (the status of the word of the Buddha – Buddhavacana) for a text is not
exactly to claim that it represents only what has actually been uttered by the Buddha
in person. Even in the Nikāya / Āgama collections accepted as the ‘word of the
Buddha’ by all ancient schools there are sutras presented as delivered not by the
Buddha but by monks and nuns who were his chief pupils – some of them after his
death … the notion of a fixed Canon of Buddhist scriptures is somewhat
problematic.11
Fundamentals of the Theravada Doctrine 4

Watagoda Maggavihari Bhikkhu

In particular, opportunity or flexibility in the Buddhist Tradition for its disciples to

construct teachings using their own intellectual and spiritual abilities based on rudimentary
canonical facts contributed for the existence of numerous discourses that could win doctrinal
status. And it was unlikely that all those important teachings could be gathered and known by all
the members of the Saṅgha who were dispersed in the Northern regions of ancient India, even by
the ones who bore the core responsibility of preserving the teachings as in the case of the first
Buddhist council. Sometimes, even the teachings made by the Tathāgata in person were not
distributed among some monks who lived in various quarters of the Āryavarta. Venerable Uttara’s
unawareness of the Devadattavipatti Sutta12 by the time he admonished his fellow brethren with
the advice recorded in the Uttaravipatti Sutta13 is a good indication of this assumption. Moreover,
the Buddha’s allowance for monks to go out from their residence, during the rainy season (vassa),
for the sake of preserving a Suttanta, which happens to be known only by a lay devotee,14 also
verifies the fact that there were teachings that were not known even by the main group of disciples.
Added to this is the discussion reported to have taken place between Venerable Purāṇa and the
Elders of the first Buddhist synod. On hearing the account made by the latter about the first council,
the prior, having conveyed his consent to the communal recitation, stated that he would prefer to
bear the Canon as they had heard directly from the Master.15

The Tathāgata, too, was aware of this fact. Therefore, close to his demise the Buddha
delivered the advice so-called Mahāpadesa, a parameter to be used when a monk claims to know
a certain teaching directly heard either from the Master, the Saṅgha, a group of monks or a well
renowned monk to judge the authenticity or correctness of the particular teaching.16 Advice of
Mahāpadesa suggests that there could be many teachings unheard of by some members of the
Saṅgha.

The great exegete Buddhaghosa, in his Vinaya Commentary Samantapāsādikā, mentions

of a formula to determine the genuineness of teachings related to discipline that prevail within
other Buddhist Traditions. If such teachings meet the necessary requirements, they should be
considered and esteemed as legitimate.17 If the Tradition of Mahāvihāra held to the idea of an
exclusive Canon, or if they believed that they possessed the entire Canon of the Buddha, such
deciding criteria was redundant.
Fundamentals of the Theravada Doctrine 5

Watagoda Maggavihari Bhikkhu

All these evidences prove that in the earlier period the Buddhist Canon was mainly
recognised in the characteristic of conformity with the fundamental Buddhist philosophical tenets,
and “not exactly to claim that it represents only what has actually been uttered by the Buddha in
person”.18

The fluid Canon gradually started to became fixed since the first council, and after the
major splits among Buddhist monks into different schools, each Tradition started to adhere to
discourses they considered to be more authentic.

The Criteria to Decide the Canon

A sāvakabhāsita was offered an equivalent status with buddhavacana on the fact that it
went in consensus with the rudimentary doctrinal facts of the Tradition. This notion can be asserted
with few incidents in which the Master rebuffed certain ideologies held into and promoted by some
of his disciples.

Once a monk called Sāti was stoutly accused for advocating a transmigrating consciousness
from one life to another in the place of dependent origination.19 On another occasion, the Buddha
admonished a monk, who was muddled with a certain doctrinal tenet, saying that holding and
advocating the particular theory in such a manner would encourage ascetics of other philosophical
beliefs to reproach the disciples of the Tathāgata.20

Proclaiming and promoting ideals that were against the gist of the teachings, even if the
disciple had unintentionally misunderstood the point he was referring to, was considered an act of
calumniating the Tathāgata.21 It is obvious that stringent parameters had been set for dilating the
teachings to maintain accuracy what might in fact otherwise lead for the conjure of sundry
philosophical thoughts contrasting to the Canon within the community of disciples which will
eventually baffle the understanding of the followers.

These examples verify that the Tathāgata’s undivided concern was to build a fraternity that
sticks to the principles which he considered correct, so he paid attention at each sāvakabhāsita
separately and valued if they were in line within his parameters and declined otherwise.22
Fundamentals of the Theravada Doctrine 6

Watagoda Maggavihari Bhikkhu

As already mentioned above, close to his demise, the Buddha uttered a discourse
delineating the structure of his teachings. The admonition is known as Mahāpadesa. (the great
criterion to decide the authenticity of a teaching).

Suppose a monk were to say “I heard and received from the Lord’s own lips: this
is the Dhamma, this is the discipline, this is the Master’s teachings”, then, monks,
you should neither approve nor disapprove his words. Then, without approving or
disapproving, his words and expressions should be carefully noted and compared
with the Suttas and reviewed in the light of the discipline (Vinaya). If they, on such
comparison and review, are found not to conform to the Suttas or to the Vinaya, the
conclusion must be, “Assuredly this is not the word of the Buddha, it has been
wrongly understood by this monk”, and the matter is to be rejected. But where on
such comparison and review they are found to conform to the Suttas or the Vinaya,
the conclusion must be, “Assuredly this is the word of the Buddha, it has been
rightly understood by this monk”. This is the first criterion
Suppose a monk were to say “In such and such a place there is a community with
elders and distinguished teachers. I have heard and received this from that
community”, then monks you should neither approve nor disapprove his words …
This is the second criterion.
Suppose a monk were to say “In such and such a place there are many elders who
are learned, bearers of the Tradition, who know the Dhamma, the Vinaya, and the
code of rules … This is the third criterion.
Suppose a monk were to say “In such and such a place there is one elder who is
learned … I have heard and received this from that elder …”. But where on such
comparison and review they are found to conform to the Suttas and the Vinaya, then
the conclusion must be “Assuredly this is the word of the Buddha, it has been
rightly understood by this monk. This is the fourth criterion.23

Above instruction does not put any concerns to check the language of the discourse which
is been inspected. More importantly it does not suggest to check and confirm the facts or historical
evidences to whether the teaching was actually delivered by whom the particular monk claim to
Fundamentals of the Theravada Doctrine 7

Watagoda Maggavihari Bhikkhu

have learned from. Concern should be paid only at its gist. If the content of the sermon goes in line
with major discourse community facts, that is to say, the four noble truths, the Doctrine of
depending origination and the discipline of abandoning unwholesome states, particular discourse
should be considered as authentic, and rejected otherwise. No concern is paid at justifying or
proving the historical validity of the claim.

It is also obvious that even some information was interspersed, maybe due to spatial
reasons, that are extraneous to the gist of the teaching, still the part integral to the essence of the
teaching should be extracted and evaluated against the basic fundamentals.

In addition, the criterion introduced in the Samantapāsadikā to be followed in order to

decide the authenticity of Vinaya issues advocated by other Buddhist sects is another parameter
used by the Mahāvihārins for the same purpose. A few more additional principles are mentioned
in the Peṭakopadesa as Suttavicaya (investigation of discourses) to decide the legitimacy of a
teaching.24

Plausibly it is based on these criteria that some teachings such as Vaṇṇapiṭaka,

Aṅgulimālapiṭaka and Guḷhavessantara, were considered not to be utterances of the Buddha
(Abuddhavacana) by the Mahāvihārinas.25

Sāvakas Constructed Teachings Based on the Fundamentals of the Canon

The following story is a fine testimony to prove that disciples delivered their sermons based
on the doctrinal tenets.

On one occasion the Venerable Uttara was dwelling at Mahisavatthu, in

Dhavajālikā on Mount Saṅkheyya. There the Venerable Uttara addressed the
bhikkhus….
“Friends, it is good for a bhikkhu from time to time to review his own failings. It is
good for a bhikkhu from time to time to review the failings of others. It is good for
a bhikkhu from time to time to review his own achievements. It is good for a
bhikkhu from time to time to review the achievements of others.”
Fundamentals of the Theravada Doctrine 8

Watagoda Maggavihari Bhikkhu

Then this admonishment was informed to the Ruler of the Deities the Sakka by the Divine
King Vessavaṇa. The Ruler of the Gods approached Venerable Uttara and the following discussion
took place between the two.

“Is it true, Bhante, as is said, that you have been teaching the Dhamma to the
bhikkhus thus: ‘Friends, it is good for a bhikkhu from time to time to review his
own failings … the failings of others … his own achievements … the achievements
of others’?”
“Yes, ruler of the devas.”
“But, Bhante, was this your own discernment, or was it the word of the Blessed
One, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One?”
“Well then, ruler of the devas, I will give you a simile; even by means of a simile,
some intelligent people understand the meaning of what has been said. Suppose not
far from a village or town there was a great heap of grain, and a large crowd of
people were to take away grain with carrying-poles, baskets, hip-sacks, and their
cupped hands. If someone were to approach that large crowd of people and ask
them: ‘Where did you get this grain?’ what should they say?”
“Bhante, those people should say: ‘We got it from that great heap of grain.’”
“So too, ruler of the devas, whatever is well spoken is all the word of the Blessed
One, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One. I myself and others derive our
good words from him.”
“It’s astounding and amazing, Bhante, how well you stated this: ‘Whatever is well
spoken is all the word of the Blessed One, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened
One. I myself and others derive our good words from him.’
“On one occasion, Bhante Uttara, the Blessed One was dwelling at Rājagaha, on
Mount Vulture Peak, not long after Devadatta had left. There the Blessed One
addressed the bhikkhus with reference to Devadatta: ‘Bhikkhus, it is good for a
bhikkhu from time to time to review his own failings…. (Sakka here cites the
Buddha’s entire discourse of 8:7, down to: [165–66]) … It is in such a way,
bhikkhus, that you should train yourselves.’
Fundamentals of the Theravada Doctrine 9

Watagoda Maggavihari Bhikkhu

“Bhante Uttara, this exposition of the Dhamma has not been promulgated anywhere
among the four human assemblies: that is, among bhikkhus, bhikkhunīs, male lay
followers, and female lay followers. Bhante, learn this exposition of the Dhamma,
master this exposition of the Dhamma, and retain this exposition of the Dhamma in
mind. This exposition of the Dhamma is beneficial; it pertains to the fundamentals
of the spiritual life.”26

As for the story, reverend Uttara’s answer suggests that he had not learned about a similar
discourse uttered by the Buddha. Otherwise he would have directly admitted that he was just
quoting a part from one of the Master’s teachings. In the way the Sutta flows, it is clear that Uttara’s
admonishment was originally constructed based on his own intellectual capacities, without being
aware that a similar admonishment had already been delivered by the Tathāgata. But he offered all
the credits to the Buddha saying that whatever beneficial saying made by any sāvaka is exclusively
based on the teachings of the Buddha. His simile was a praise to the Tathāgata for initially
expounding the Canon which formed the foundation based on which the sāvakas could construct
their own teaching related to spiritual progress. Related to the story, though the same
admonishment, with more elaboration, was prematurely made by the Buddha, insertion of the
Uttara’s advice was mainly owing to its competency when judged under fundamental doctrinal
facts.

An important point revealed by these evidences is that there is no harm at all even if
sāvakabhāsitas and buddhabhāsitas are mingled with each other as long as the discourses agree
with what the Buddha had mainly taught. More importantly, the authenticity of a certain teaching
was not adjudicated based on historical facts, but rather judged upon its alignment with the
fundamental tenets. Thus, this notion was propounded by the author of the Commentary on
Nettippakaraṇa (Nettipāḷi).

Whatever teaching that does not go against the admonishment of Mahāpadesa is

authentic … What is the use of searching for the origin of the teaching, the
meaning, which does not contradict with the Canon, is what should be searched
for.27
Fundamentals of the Theravada Doctrine 10

Watagoda Maggavihari Bhikkhu

The pivotal message conveyed by all these lengthy details is that principal characteristic of
the Buddhist Canon, or the Tipiṭaka of Mahāvihāra, is that it is a Canon delivered or constructed
based on some major philosophical tenets. So, unearthing these doctrinal rudiments is an act of
great significant, in order to study Buddhism and to lead one’s practice in the direction
recommended by the teachings, which will be attempted in the next chapter.

Commentarial Literature of the Mahāvihāra Tradition

Its Origin
Buddhism largely encourages investigation (vīmaṃsā) and interrogation (pripucchā).
Questioning doubts is considered a mean of overcoming scepticism, and also a vital requirement,
as the Buddha considers, to develop insight wisdom (vipassanāñāṇa), which is the prerequisite for
the supra-mundane attainment.28 Sāvakas are supposed query their reserves till they come into
satisfactory understanding. When thus interrogated, some subject matters needed to be explained
with clarification, it means, with a Commentary.

Even the Buddha held to the idea that certain humans require explanatory discourses to
understand his teachings.29 More importantly some of his exclusive teachings that proved to be
novel to the human thought required explicit interpretation, that would otherwise be obscure or
ambiguous to disciples with ordinary intellectual capacities. Hence, given these conditions and
requirements, a separate commentarial Tradition engendered within the Buddhist lineage.

With the material present today, it can be postulated that Commentaries at the beginning
had two main functions.30

1. To explain the meaning of words

3. To explain the meaning of phrases and sentences in which those words are found

In that sense, in the Dhammasaṅgaṇī, the first book of the Abhidhamma Piṭaka, number of
synonyms are given to certain technical terms related to the psychophysical phenomenon. At the
end of the book, the chapter titled aṭṭhakathākaṇḍa or atthuddhāra provides the ultimate
representation of the topics of the book (mātikā). Books such as Vibhaṅgappakaraṇa, Niddesa and
Paṭisambhidāmagga and suttas such as Araṇavibhanga, Āsivisopama and Bāhiya and the
Fundamentals of the Theravada Doctrine 11

Watagoda Maggavihari Bhikkhu

Padabhājanīya section of Vinaya carry explanation of specific words, phrases and sentences of
some teachings. Out of them, the two books Mahāniddesa and Cūḷaniddesa, which are direct
Commentaries upon the aṭṭhakavagga and pārāyaṇavagga of Suttanipāta, and assumed to be
compiled at an earlier stage, depict the characteristics of an old commentarial Tradition. These
mentioned books and teachings were compiled or preached to shed light upon the fundamental
tenets of Buddhism, at least of the Doctrine preserved under Mahāvihāra.

Then the commentarial Tradition got evolved into different spheres of explanatory modes.

In this regard, two books of paramount important when discussing about the commentarial
Tradition are the Nettippakarṇa and Peṭakopadesa. These two books sharing similar material
enlighten the readers on how Buddhist teachings should be and can be dilated within one major
philosophical framework. They also provide information on methods how each and every teaching
found in the Canon could be detailed in relation with the attainment of the Sumnum Bonum of the
faith, the Nibbāna.

Milindapañha is another book with commentarial features. It was compiled based on a

lengthy discussion took place between a learned elderly monk and a King of Greek descendant
during the second century AD in the city called Mithilā. The questions posed by the King Milinda
(Menander I Soter) were answered by the elder Nāgasena referring to the Canon. However, the
book carries a considerable amount of information that are exclusive to it. Mostly, the answers are
given with similes narrated by the elder himself using his remarkable skills in eloquence and logic.
Nevertheless, despite the novel information found in the book, still it was academically venerated
by the great exegete Buddhaghosa as a primary source considering its consensus with the Canon.

In addition to these exegetical teachings, there existed a separate commentarial Literature

called Aṭṭhakathā, to serve the same purpose of elucidating the teachings, of which roots even run
back, as stated by Norman, as far as to the time of the Buddha.31 Jātaka Aṭṭhakathā, as for the
Tradition holds, was preached by the Buddha in person. It is a collection of some of the past-life
stories of the Tathāgata in which he fulfilled his perfections to attain the Buddhahood. In Pali, the
way of interpreting or dilating the teachings are called pakiṇṇaka desanā.32 As for the Tradition
holds, these methods were first introduced by the Buddha himself, and, later on, disciples recited
Fundamentals of the Theravada Doctrine 12

Watagoda Maggavihari Bhikkhu

them in the communal recitations. These methods were the roots of the aṭṭhakthā Tradition.33 An
incident is recorded at the end of the Commentary for Sāmaññaphala Sutta in which the Buddha
prophesised the future destiny of the King Ajātasattu. But the elders of the first council decided
not to include this prophesy to the Canon and kept it as a commentarial information.34 Later on,
after passing away of the Master, learned sāvakas endeavoured to explicate some doctrinal matters
that were better detailed. Such attempts, for certainty, must have been made in the saṅgāyanas. At
the same time, with the allowance given for the monks to make their own teachings based on
fundamentals of the Doctrine, there must have been various commentarial Traditions initiated by
different sāvakas residing in various regions of the Āryavarta. Some of such Commentaries would
have been discussed, examined and brought into agreement with necessary remedies by the elders
who gathered in communal recitations.

The Aṭṭhakathā Literature

As the Ceylonese annals and the Pali Commentaries record, when Venerable Mahinda
made his missionary expedition into the shores of the island, he brought with him the Canon and
its Commentary which had been approved and reckoned to be authentic in the three major Buddhist
councils held in India.35 On his arrival, he preached the Dhamma in both Pali and Sinhalese Pakrit.
Later on, at a certain stage, elders of Ceylon translated the Commentaries into the language of the
islanders in order to prevent it from being mingled with the views of the other Buddhist sects.36 It
means the translation has happened while the Abhayagiri fraternity was gaining popularity within
Ceylon. Venerable Buddhaghosa named this commentarial Tradition that was brought by
Venerable Mahinda and later put into Sinhalese Pakrit as the Mahā Aṭṭhakathā. This seemed to be
the standard commentarial Tradition acclaimed by the Saṅgha living in the Mahāvihāra and some
of its affiliated monasteries. In the fifth century AD, these Sinhalese Commentaries were
committed into Pali for the sake of monks living in foreign countries.

However, some communities of monks living in faraway regions from the Mahāvihāra of
Anuradhapura, but still adhered to the Tipiṭaka accepted by the Mahāvihāra or Theravada school,
maintained different commentarial Traditions, as for the remnant evidences, at least on the Canon
of Vinaya. It is an unknown fact, to its exact number, how many such Traditions existed. Some of
Fundamentals of the Theravada Doctrine 13

Watagoda Maggavihari Bhikkhu

their names are found in the Samantapāsādikā the Pali Commentary of Buddhaghosa on the
Vinaya Piṭaka.

1. Kurundi Aṭṭhakathā
4. Mahāpaccariya Aṭṭṭhakathā
5. Andhaka Aṭṭhakathā
6. Saṅkhepa Aṭṭhakathā

Venerable Buddhaghosa while translating the Sinhalese Vinaya Commentary, it means, the
Mahā Aṭṭhakathā for the Vinaya Piṭaka, into Pali, referred to the above commentarial Traditions
as well. But it is obvious that his reliance was placed mainly upon the Mahā Aṭṭhakathā.

There is no such mentioning about Buddhaghosa or any other commentator referring to a

subsidiary commentarial Tradition while compiling Commentaries for the Suttanta and
Abhidhamma Piṭakas. But Visuddhimagga contains information about ancient Sinhalese
Commentaries for the four major Nikāyas i.e. Dhīgha Nikāya, Majjhima Nikāya, Aṅguttara Nikāya
and Saṃyutta Nikāya, most probably of the Mahā Aṭṭhakathā Tradition. Some books in Khuddaka
Nikāya, too, had Commentaries written in Sinhalese.

Over time, Pali Commentaries, thus compiled for the benefit of the monks living outside
the shores of Ceylon,37 won the preference of the Ceylonese Saṅgha over the Commentaries in
their own language. The main characteristic of the Pali Aṭṭhakathā to appeal the favour of the
Ceylonese monks would have been its conciseness. Pali commentators, in general, eschewed
repetition in re-explaining meanings that have already been dilated (apubbapadatthavaṇṇanā). In
addition, studying the Commentaries in the same language in which the Canon was written must
have proved to be more effective in getting closer to the gist of the teachings. So as a result, over
time, Pali Commentaries rose into the prominence and, with the catalysts of foreign invasions and
internal political unrest which frequented the Ceylonese history, and the ancient Sinhalese
Commentaries gradually found their way to extinction. And today it is an impossible task to trace
any manuscripts of this archaic Sinhalese Literature.
Fundamentals of the Theravada Doctrine 14

Watagoda Maggavihari Bhikkhu

Some Distinguish Characteristics of Aṭṭhakathā Literature

Commentarial Tradition was engendered to serve the purposes of explaining the meanings
of words, phrases and sentences elaborating the essence of the teachings. Books that were given
doctrinal status, but bare distinct commentarial features such as Dhammasaṅgaṇī, Vibhaṅga,
Padabhājanīya of Vinaya, Niddesa and Suttas such as Āsīvisopama, Araṇavibhaṅga and Bāhiya
were compiled or preached with this objective.

However, when it comes to the Literature so-called Aṭṭhakathā additional explanatory

approaches can be observed, while the principal objective remained the same.

1. Grammatical explanations of the words have been given an apparent importance.

2. Rendering more information about the background stories is another conspicuous but
benign feature.
3. Sometimes similes were introduced to make teachings more intelligible.
4. Insertion of allegories of the region where the Commentaries were compiled have
contributed a practical value to the teachings in the Canon as well as given them a lively
attribute.
5. Moreover, attempts to postulate reasons behind certain teachings are also not infrequent.
6. Discussing certain subject matters and presenting various ideas of different scholars have
elevated the academic value of the Literature.

It is noteworthy that the commentarial Tradition also maintained a record of the history of
the sāsana, especially how the teachings were transmitted from one generation of teachers to the
subsequent generation of students.

In simple words, Aṭṭhakathās became an erudite Literature with diverse explanatory

methods.

The Aṭṭhakathās were not Fixed at the Beginning and they got Expanded Gradually
The same tacit allowance within the Buddhist Tradition for the sāvakas to provide
teachings using their intellectual and spiritual aptitudes must have paved the opportunity for them
to make comments upon the meaning of the Canon as well, and this Tradition kept growing with
Fundamentals of the Theravada Doctrine 15

Watagoda Maggavihari Bhikkhu

the time. For certainty, various interpretations upon particular teachings must have prevailed
within the Saṅgha even after the splits of the disciples. Some of such interpretations were discussed
at the communal councils and standardised. In fact, there are evidences of new information and
explanation added to the Commentaries in due course. Existence of stories of Ceylonese origin
and debates and miscellaneous interpretations of Ceylonese theras, in ancient Sinhalese
Commentaries,38 is another fact for insertion of new material into the Aṭṭhakathā Literature. Mori
suggests the historical expansion of the Sinhalese Commentaries till the beginning of the second
century AD.39 It means the Commentaries were not fixed even after the Aṭṭhakathā Literature was
written on palms leaves, in the first century BC, and might have been subject to occasional revision
even. While ancient Commentaries were being put into Pali, there are occasions in which,
Venerable Buddhaghosa adopted different explanatory structures to those found in archaic
Commentaries,40 and he even suggested his opinion over a few interpretations that did not please
him.41

More solid evidences can be provided in relation to the evolution of the Aṭṭhakathā
Literature within the sect of Mahāvihāra. Venerable Buddhaghosa, as it was stated above, referred
to four different commentarial Traditions while translating the Vinaya Commentary of the Mahā
Aṭṭhakathā.42 These four Traditions can be stated as subsidiary commentarial Traditions of the
Mahāvihāra fraternity or at least affiliated to it. As for the information in Samantapāsādikā, all
these Commentaries followed the same Vinaya Piṭaka. It seems as even Venerable Buddhaghosa
has considered these Traditions to be of the same linage that of the Mahāvihāra Tradition by the
fact, from the very outset of his translation, the way he had referred to and esteemed them.43 In
some instances, with regard to certain Vinaya issues, he placed his academic preference upon some
of these Traditions over the Mahā Aṭṭhakathā. 44 The most important fact is that these five
commentarial Traditions, including the Mahā Atṭhakathā, had a considerable number of different
interpretations, which in turn proves the absence of a standardised Aṭṭhakathā Tradition that was
accepted or followed among all the member affiliated to the Mahāvihāra or, at least, who followed
the same Vinaya Canon. In other words, various commentarial Traditions grew by their own in
different regions even within the sect of Mahāvihāra.
Fundamentals of the Theravada Doctrine 16

Watagoda Maggavihari Bhikkhu

Noticeably, Venerable Buddhaghosa’s compilation of a Commentary on Dhammasaṅgaṇī

and attempt to compile a Commentary for the Catubhāṇavāra Pāḷi with limited resources he had
in India, suggests of an attitude of the Buddhist monks to produce new commentarial explanations,
and also the tolerance within the community of Saṅgha towards such new literary innovations.
Seeing his endeavour and more importantly potent capability, Buddhaghosa’s tutor asked him to
sail to the shores of Ceylon to accomplish his objective with the help of an ancient reliable
Tradition.45 The teacher must have foreseen the benefits of his competent student pursuing the task
of producing exegesis relying on a well-known monastic Tradition that has preserved the Buddhist
Literature for centuries rather attempting to do so with the handful of resources present in their
region. But the point noteworthy is the initiative of Venerable Buddhaghosa to write a
Commentary – that proves of a then prevailed tendency within the Saṅgha allowing the
commentarial Tradition to evolve.

A Commentary of pure Ceylonese origin is the Niddesa Aṭṭhakathā. Samantapāsādikā

relates a story about a time when there was only a single monk who had memorised the whole
Niddesapāḷi. The Saṅgha ordered a young but talented monk to study and memorise the book from
that particular monk. Then the remaining monks mastered the book under that young bhikkhu.
There was no mentioning of him studying its Commentary under that teacher.46 And it is more
unlike for the Commentary for Niddesa to be known by any other monk in the island while its
doctrinal part was known only by a single monk. Therefore, it is very logical and reasonable to
assume that the Commentary for Niddesa which is present today was compiled at a later period in
Ceylon.

But a fact that should be emphasised at this juncture is that all these later developments
within the commentarial Traditions, especially in the Aṭṭhakathās, are in line with the discourse
community facts and the discourse community constrains esteemed by the Tradition of
Mahāvihāra.

Sub-Commentarial Literature of the Mahāvihāra Tradition

Ever since the Commentaries were compiled, various interpretations emerged for the
material found in them. As the illustrious Ceylonese elders of the 12th century concerned, those
Fundamentals of the Theravada Doctrine 17

Watagoda Maggavihari Bhikkhu

interpretations concerning Vinaya had a considerable amount of sundry explanations that did not
please them. Some of their peer brethren were following customs as recommended by such
accounts. And this was not confined to the shores of Ceylon as well.47 Those explanations were
not even in a standard language, mingled with various Prakrits.48 Then, some erudite elders of the
era, starting from the eighth century AD, 49 undertook the enterprise of explaining the
Commentaries based on discourse community facts and discourse community constrains of the
Mahāvihāra Tradition, discussing those various sundry interpretations of the era as well as
adjudicating them. Hence, appeared a new branch of Literature called Tīkā, Sub-Commentaries or
Commentaries on Commentaries.

Compiling Ṭīkās was veritably an act of safe guarding the unity of the sāsana. Offering
conclusive interpretations to those various explanations which would in fact otherwise bewilder
the Saṅgha, if not treated with acute analysis, was a timely need. Rather it was an act of ensuring
the unity within the order preventing the catalysts of further disputes within the Tradition of
Mahāvihāra, which was on the brink of new splits due to emergence of sundry doctrinal
interpretations. Lacking concord among monks about Dhammavinaya issues was the greatest
threat for the unity of the sāsana.50 Since up to then the sāsana had already witnessed number of
splits within the Saṅgha wrought by disputes in various Dhamma and Vinaya issues. Writing Sub-
Commentaries would have for certainly lessened academic disputes within the clergy of the
Mahāvihāra Tradition before they reached the levels of divisive concerns. And in relation to
Vinaya it would have encouraged the monks to follow a similar code of discipline, which is a
rudimentary necessity for the concord of Saṅgha. This settlement of interpretations regarding
doctrinal and commentarial issues was not only confined to the basket of discipline, but also related
with other two portions of the Canon as well. This can be verified by the number of various
interpretations discussed in Suttanata and Abhidhamma Sub-Commentaries.

In time, the Commentaries themselves became less intelligible, and required explanation,51
engendering the need for Commentaries about Commentaries. When studying the Commentaries,
it becomes obvious that they contain lots of implications made with presupposition52 considering
then current knowledge circulating within the institutions of monks. But, with the sporadic
invasions from neighbouring South-India and internecine rebellions provoked by dissidents which
Fundamentals of the Theravada Doctrine 18

Watagoda Maggavihari Bhikkhu

featured the Ceylonese history disrupted the ordinary functioning of the monastic organisation,
during troublesome periods, and caused the extinction of some rare literary sources. This
downgrading of monks’ education, eventually, triggered difficulties in understanding the
commentarial material inserted with presupposition. So, much elaboration was needed as to read
the Commentaries more accurately. Some erudite scholars of the era appreciated the timely need
and shouldered this crucial responsibility, an enterprise needing meticulous handling and in which
they were prolific, of explaining the Commentaries especially the material that had become
abstruse. So, the Aṭṭhakathā Literature became intelligible to the peer brethren and the posterity
yet to come.

Significant Characteristics of the Sub-Commentarial (Ṭīkā) Literature

1. Tīkās explain the words, phrases and sentences in Commentaries, sometimes even the
context under which some commentarial information were written.
2. Grammatical explanations have gained more space in Sub-Commentaries than in
Commentaries. This also shows the inclination of the Saṅgha towards mastering grammar
during this era.
3. Tīkās have sometimes unearthed certain grammatical methods (Pāli naya) used in
Aṭṭhakathā to elaborate certain doctrinal issues.
4. Tīkā for Majjhima Nikāya and Anu-Ṭīkā for Abhidhamma has given exemplary samples on
how to elaborate teachings following the explanatory methods described in
Nittippakaraṇa.
5. In some occasions, sub-commentators have attempted to figure out the reasons why certain
commentarial information were given in specific ways and also to determine the intentions
of the commentators in making their writings in certain manners.
6. Similes Commentaries have offered in order to illustrate certain teachings have been
scrutinized pointing their relationship with the related doctrinal issue.
7. Sometimes, sub-commentators have directly interpreted the Canon.
8. Various interpretation then prevailed concerning commentarial and doctrinal material were
brought into discussion with the intention of arriving at decisive explanations.
9. Sometimes, information found in Commentaries were brought into discussion and
a. Defended or
Fundamentals of the Theravada Doctrine 19

Watagoda Maggavihari Bhikkhu

b. Amended showing their flaws and limitations.

Ancient Aṭṭhakathās are attributed to a lineage of commontators and Pali Commentaries

are the translations of those archaic Commentaries, but Sub-Commentaries are the explanations
made by individual elders on Pali Commentaries (sometimes on the Tipiṭaka). Hence, they could
be categorised as personal interpretations upon the Doctrine (attanomat). So, the material found in
Ṭīkās exude the influence of the subsidiary Tradition a particular sub-commentator comes from.
So, they may contain explanations that did not fully collaborate with the interpretation accepted
and followed in the main school of the Mahāvihāra. For instance, some information in Mūlaṭīkā
which goes against the Abhidhamma Commentary are sometimes rejected by later scholars who
strictly followed the main stream of the Mahāvihāra Tradition, referring to that information as
ideas of some others (keci).53 However, such contrasting issues are less in number.

A point worthy emphasis is that all sub-commentators did compose their enterprises
keeping in line with the literary parameters of the Mahāvihāra Tradition.

They followed very similar explanatory methods and provided collaborating information
(facts), which can be obviously observed, despite some handful of issues that have aroused
disagreements within the Tradition.

Norman thus acclaimed his commendation towards Ṭīkā Literature, “Sometimes, as I have
just said, these (sub-) Commentaries, although late, nevertheless preserved readings and
explanations which are superior to anything found in earlier Commentaries”.54

Finally, there appeared another type of Sub-Commentaries. They were not the Sub-
Commentaries for the Aṭṭhakathās, but for other treatises related to Buddhism, such as books
written on specific topics such as basic Abhidhamma, certain Vinaya rules, Sīmā and Pali grammar.

As this essey revealed, the most highlighted datum of the Doctrine is that all the threefold
Literature is based on discourse community facts accepted in the Tradition. Therfore, it was
possible to produce new discourses and interpretations based on the rudiments, and, eventually,
the Literature evolved over time. More importantly, due to this characteristic of the Doctrine, the
authenticity of a certain teaching was not adjudicated based on historical facts, but rather judged
Fundamentals of the Theravada Doctrine 20

Watagoda Maggavihari Bhikkhu

upon its alignment with the rudimentary tenets. Therefore, a profound investigation on these
fundamentals is essential in order to gain clear picture about the entire Doctrine which will be
discussed in the next lecture.
Fundamentals of the Theravada Doctrine 21

Watagoda Maggavihari Bhikkhu

Books for Further Reading

1. The Foundations of Buddhism by Gethin Rupert

2. A Philological Approach to Buddhism by K R Norman

3. A Study of the Pali Commentaries – Theravadic Aspects of the Aṭṭhakathās by Morin Sodo,

4. Studies in Pali Commentarial Literature, Toshiichi Endo

Fundamentals of the Theravada Doctrine 22

Watagoda Maggavihari Bhikkhu

Notes

1 This term can be found in many places of the Tipiṭaka. It was used referring to the teaching and the
discipline, not only of the Buddhist dispensation, but also of any other religious sect.

“Tatth dhammavinaye’ti dhamme ceva vinaye ca, ubhayena’pi aniyyānikasāsanaṃ dassesi” (M-a I 319).

2 The translations were taken from the translation of the Theravada Bhikkhu Vibhaṅga by Brahmāli in Sutta-

Central web site.

3 V I 8-10.

4 D-a I 16.

This is known as the first Buddhist council or paṭhama saṅgāyanā (in Pali). The event is mentioned to have
taken place at Rājagaha after 3 months from the Buddhas demise. 500 prominent monks – Tathāgatas’s disciples – of
the era participated in the council. (For further information see the Commentary Paṭhama Mahā Saṅgīti Kathā of the
Commentary for Dīgha Nikāya)

5 K R Norman, A Philological Approach to Buddhism, (Oxford: The Pali Text Society, 2008), 56.

6 As von Hinüber points out an example in the Jātaka Commentary the term Pali was also used referring to
nothing more than a text – “catunnampi catasso gāthāyo bandhitvā paḷimeva uggaṇhāpetvā uyyojesi” – “Composing
four verses, and making the four (students) learn them, he sent them off”. (J-a VI 192.)

This was taken from the collected papers of Norman (Norman 2008 175.)

7 Abhidhamma could also be termed as the teachings that explains ‘rudimentary ideologies’ upon which a

significant portion of the Canon is based.

8 M I, 154-62: Madhupiṇḍika Sutta; M III, 228-32: Ānandabhaddekaratta Sutta

9 Pv-a 131.

10 Pv-a 227.

11 Gethin Rupert, The Foundations of Buddhism, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 46.

12 A VIII 9-11.

13 A VIII 11-4.

14 V III 196: So ce bhikkhūnaṃ santike dūtaṃ pahiṇeyya – ‘Āgacchantu bhadantā, imaṃ suttantaṃ
pariyāpuṇissanti, purāyaṃ suttanto na palujjatī’ti, gantabbaṃ, bhikkhave, sattāhakaraṇīyena, pahite, na tveva
appahite. Sattāhaṃ sannivatto kātabbo.

15 V IV 486: Ekamantaṃ nisinnaṃ kho āyasmantaṃ purāṇaṃ therā bhikkhū etadavocuṃ – “Therehi, āvuso

purāṇa, dhammo ca vinayo ca saṅgīto. Upehi taṃ saṅgīti”nti. “Susaṅgītāvuso, therehi dhammo ca vinayo ca. Apica
yatheva mayā bhagavato sammukhā sutaṃ, sammukhā paṭiggahitaṃ, tathevāhaṃ dhāressāmī”ti.
Fundamentals of the Theravada Doctrine 23

Watagoda Maggavihari Bhikkhu

16 D II 102-4.

17 V-a 197-9.

18 Gethin Rupert, The Foundations of Buddhism, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 46.

19 M I 323.

20 M II 95.

21 M I 325.

This idea of wrong advocation of a particular teaching is veritably an act of calumniating the master seems
to be a commonly held idea within other religious communities as well, since Acelaka Kassapa, too, questioned the
Buddha with regard to this notion (See Mahāsīhanāda Sutta, Dīgha Nikāya).

22 Tathāgata’s disciples, who delivered some discourses demonstrated a great deal of concern to gain the

Master’s approval over their orations, other than enlightening the listeners. Venerable Mahākaccāyana having detailed
the Madhupiṇḍika Sutta requested his brethren who listened to his discourse to approach the Buddha and pose the
same question, which they interrogated him. Then asked them to recognise the Thatāgata’s reply as the perfect answer
and to bear it (M I, 160). Venerable Ānanda is also mentioned to have followed the same procedure after expounding
the Ānandabhaddekaratta Sutta (228-32). The Cūḷavedalla Sutta, at its end, contains a similar request made by the
therī Dhammadinnā, who gave answers in a discussion with the lay devotee Visāka (M I, 305). These incidents suggest
that leading sāvakas were in a tacit consensus not to overstep or to go astray from the fundamental doctrinal tenets by
any means.

23 Walshe Maurice, The Long Discourses of the Buddha – A Translation of the Dīgha Nikāya, Wisdom

Publications, Boston, 2012, 255-6.

24 Pe 219-23.

25 V-a II 9: Vaṇṇapiṭaka-aṅgulimālapiṭaka-raṭṭhapālagaajata-āḷavakagajjita-guḷhamagga-
guḷhavessantara-guḷhavinaya-vedallapiṭakāni pana abuddhavacanāniyevāti vuttaṁ.

Bodih Bhikkhu, The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha – A Translation of the Aṅguttara Nikāya,
26

Wisdom Publications, Boston, 2012, 1119-21.

27Nt-a 3-4: Yā hi catūhi mahāpadesehi aviruddhā pāḷi, sā pamāṇaṃ … Kimetena nidānagavesanena,

atthoyevettha gavesitabbo, yo pāḷiyā aviruddhoti.

28 A III 2-3: So taṁ satthāraṁ upanissāya viharanto aññataraṁ vā garuṭṭhāniyaṁ sabrahmacāriṁ, yatthassa

tibbaṁ hirottappaṁ paccupaṭṭhitaṁ hoti pemaṁ gāravo ca, te kālena kālaṁ upasaṅkamitvā paripucchati paripañhati
– “Idaṁ, bhante, kathaṁ; imassa ko attho”ti? Tassa te āyasmanto avivaṭañceva vivaranti, anuttānīkatañca uttānī
karonti, anekavihitesu ca kaṅkhāṭhāniyesu dhammesu kaṅkhaṁ paṭivinodenti. Ayaṁ, bhikkhave, dutiyo hetu dutiyo
paccayo ādibrahmacariyikāya paññāya appaṭiladdhāya paṭilābhāya, paṭiladdhāya bhiyyobhāvāya vepullāya
bhāvanāya pāripūriyā saṁvattati.

29 In the Ugghaṭitaññū Sutta of Aṅguttara Nikāya (A I 452) the Buddha classified beings into four groups of
which the second is called vipañcitaññū – one who understands the teachings when detailed (vipañcitaṃ jānātīti >
vipañcitaññū). Therefore, as for the Buddha was concerned, some of his teachings needed to be explicated as he and
his disciples had done in various occasions. This was one of the needs which engendered a Commentarial Literature
within Buddhist Traditions.
Fundamentals of the Theravada Doctrine 24

Watagoda Maggavihari Bhikkhu

30 (Norman 2008) 196-7.

Norman 2008, 213: “Although some of Commentarial material must go back to very early times in
31

Buddhism, perhaps to the time of the Buddha himself, …”

In Pali, the way of interpreting or dilating the teachings are called pakiṇṇaka desanā (D-ṭ I 15). As for the
Tradition holds, these methods were first introduced by the Buddha himself, and, later on, disciples recited them in
the communal recitations. These methods were the roots of the aṭṭhakthā Tradition (Vvn-ṭ I 104).

32 D-ṭ I 15.

33 Vvn-ṭ I 104.

Based on the discussion took place between Venerable Purāṇa and the elders who conducted the first council,
it is highly logical to assume that some of such explanatory teachings must have not been introduced to the nucleus of
the community. They must have been preserved and followed by various groups of monks under their own will and
preference.

34 D-a 212: Idaṃ vuttaṃ hoti – sace iminā pitā ghātito nābhavissa, idāni idhevāsane nisinno
sotāpattimaggaṃ patto abhavissa, pāpamittasaṃsaggena panassa antarāyo jāto. Evaṃ santepi yasmā ayaṃ
tathāgataṃ upasaṅkamitvā ratanattayaṃ saraṇaṃ gato, tasmā mama sāsanamahantatāya yathā nāma koci purisassa
vadhaṃ katvā pupphamuṭṭhimattena daṇḍena mucceyya, evameva lohakumbhiyaṃ nibbattitvā tiṃsavassasahassāni
adho patanto heṭṭhimatalaṃ patvā tiṃsavassasahassāni uddhaṃ gacchanto punapi uparimatalaṃ pāpuṇitvā
muccissatīti idampi kira bhagavatā vuttameva, pāḷiyaṃ pana na ārūḷhaṃ.

D-a I 1: Dīghassa dīghasuttaṅkitassa, nipuṇassa āgamavarassa –buddhānubuddhasaṁvaṇṇitassa,

35

saddhāvahaguṇassa.

Atthappakāsanatthaṁ, Aṭṭhakathā ādito vasisatehi – pañcahi yā saṅgītā, anusaṅgītā ca pacchāpi.

Sīhaḷadīpaṁ pana ābhatātha, vasinā mahāmahindena – ṭhapitā sīhaḷabhāsāya, dīpavāsīnamatthāya.

36Srd-ṭ I 19: Soyeva (Buddhavacanassa atthasaṃvaṇṇanābhūto kathāmaggo) ca mahāmahindattherena

tambapaṇṇidīpaṁ ābhato, pacchā tambapaṇṇiyehi mahātherehi nikāyantaraladdhīhi saṅkarapariharaṇatthaṁ
sīhaḷabhāsāya ṭhapito.

37 V-a I 2: Saṁvaṇṇanā sīhaḷadīpakena, vākyena esā pana saṅkhatattā – na kiñci atthaṁ abhisambhuṇāti,

dīpantare bhikkhujanassa yasmā.

Tasmā imaṁ pāḷinayānurūpaṁ, saṁvaṇṇanaṁ dāni samārabhissaṁ – ajjhesanaṁ buddhasirivhayassa,

therassa sammā samanussaranto.

38 Srd-ṭ I 20: Aṭṭhakathāsu vuttattheravādānaṁ bāhirabhāvo siyāti tepi antokattukāmo

“Antogadhatheravāda”nti āha, …

The above statement clearly reveals that even the Sinhalese Commentaries contained various interpretation
of Ceylonese Elders, because here the term theravada refers to opinions of Elders which are mentioned in the Pali
Commentaries, and most of those elders had lived in Ceylon. So, the opinions and debates of Elders found in the Pali
Commentaries were recorded in the Sinhalese Commentaries as well. It means, the Commentarial Literature brought
to Ceylon got expanded within the Island.

39 Morin Sodo, A Study of the Pali Commentaries – Theravadic Aspects of the Aṭṭhakathās, (Tokyo, Sankibō-

busshorin, 1984), 466.

Fundamentals of the Theravada Doctrine 25

Watagoda Maggavihari Bhikkhu

40 V-a I 263: Imasmiñca ṭhāne sabba-aṭṭhakathā ākulā luḷitā duviññeyyavinicchayā … Yāni ca tattha
labbhamānāniyeva pañcakāni dassitāni, tesampi na sabbesaṁ attho pakāsito. Evamimasmiṁ ṭhāne sabba-aṭṭhakathā
ākulā luḷitā duviññeyyavinicchayā. Tasmā pañca pañcakesamodhānetvā dassiyamānā ime pañcavīsati avahārā
sādhukaṁ sallakkhetabbā.

According to this passage, the structure and way of interpretations given in ancient Commentaries about 25
modes of stealing related to the second Pārājikā did not please Venerable Buddhaghosa. So, he offered information
in a new module.

41 In ancient Commentaries, sound is considered as to move in generations and strike at the ear-sensitivity.

But Venerable Buddhaghosa rejects this idea and advocated that sound becomes sensitive to the ear-sensitivity from
its very location of origin. Therefore, the ear-sensitivity which become sensitive to a sound that has not reached it, is
termed as asampattaggāhī (Abh-a I 351-2). This new idea found against ancient Commentaries might have had
originated within the Mahāvihāra fraternity even before the period of Buddhaghosa.

V-a I 277: Rittakumbhiyā “Idāni telaṃ ākirissantī”ti ñatvā yaṃkiñci bhaṇḍaṃ theyyacitto pakkhipati, taṃ ce
tattha tele ākiṇṇe pañcamāsakaagghanakaṃ pivati, pītamatte pārājikanti mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ. Taṃ pana
tattheva sukkhataḷāke sukkhamātikāya ujukaraṇavinicchayena virujjhati, avahāralakkhaṇañcettha na paññāyati,
tasmā na gahetabbaṃ. Mahāpaccariyādīsu pana tassa uddhāre pārājikaṃ vuttaṃ, taṃ yuttaṃ.

42 V-a I 2.

43V-a 2: Saṃvaṇṇanaṃ tañca samārabhanto; tassā mahāaṭṭhakathaṃ sarīraṃ; katvā mahāpaccariyaṃ

tatheva; kurundināmādisu vissutāsu.

Vinicchayo aṭṭhakathāsu vutto; yo yuttamatthaṃ apariccajanto; tatopi antogadhatheravādaṃ;

saṃvaṇṇanaṃ samma samārabhissaṃ.

44 V-a I 277: Rittakumbhiyā “Idāni telaṃ ākirissantī”ti ñatvā yaṃkiñci bhaṇḍaṃ theyyacitto pakkhipati, taṃ
ce tattha tele ākiṇṇe pañcamāsakaagghanakaṃ pivati, pītamatte pārājikanti mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ. Taṃ pana
tattheva sukkhataḷāke sukkhamātikāya ujukaraṇavinicchayena virujjhati, avahāralakkhaṇañcettha na paññāyati,
tasmā na gahetabbaṃ. Mahāpaccariyādīsu pana tassa uddhāre pārājikaṃ vuttaṃ, taṃ yuttaṃ.

V-a II 294: Pacchābhattaṃ parissāvitapaṭiggahitena kataṃ pana nirāmisameva sattāhaṃ vaṭṭati.

Uggahitakakataṃ vuttanayameva. “Jhāmaucchuphāṇitaṃ vā koṭṭitaucchuphāṇitaṃ vā purebhattameva vaṭṭatī”ti
mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ. Mahāpaccariyaṃ pana “Etaṃ savatthukapakkaṃ vaṭṭati, no vaṭṭatī”ti pucchaṃ katvā
“Ucchuphāṇitaṃ pacchābhattaṃ novaṭṭanakaṃ nāma natthī”ti vuttaṃ, taṃ yuttaṃ.

45 Buddhist Cultural Centre, trans., Mahāvaṃśaya, Sinhalese, (Dehiwela: Buddhist Cultural Centre, 2015),
173

46 V-a II 274-5.

47 A P Buddhadatta, Theravādī Bauddhācāryo, S. Godage and Brothers, Colombo 10, 2008, 93: As

mentioned before, the book Sīmālaṅkāra Saṅgaha was written against an idea held by the Coḷiya monks regarding
Sīmā matters.

48 Srd-ṭ I 2: Vinayaṭṭhakathāyāhaṁ, līnasāratthadīpaniṁ, karissāmi suviññeyyaṁ, paripuṇṇamanākulaṁ.

Porāṇehi kataṁ yaṁ tu, līnatthassa pakāsanaṁ, na taṁ sabbattha bhikkhūnaṁ, atthaṁ sādheti sabbaso.
Duviññeyyasabhāvāya, sīhaḷāya niruttiyā, gaṇṭhipadesvanekesu, likhitaṁ kiñci katthaci.
Māgadhikāya bhāsāya, ārabhitvāpi kenaci, bhāsantarehi sammissaṁ, likhitaṁ kiñcideva ca.
Fundamentals of the Theravada Doctrine 26

Watagoda Maggavihari Bhikkhu

Asāraganthabhāropi, tattheva bahu dissati, ākulañca kataṁ yattha, suviññeyyampi atthato.

Tato aparipuṇṇena, tādisenettha sabbaso, kathamatthaṁ vijānanti, nānādesanivāsino.
Bhāsantaraṁ tato hitvā, sāramādāya sabbaso, anākulaṁ karissāmi, paripuṇṇavinicchayanti.

49Malalasekara G P, Pali Literature of Ceylon, (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 2014), 172: Mūlaṭīkā
is considered the first Sub-Commentaryof the Mahāvihāra Tradition. The era of its author is not exactly known. But
Malalasekara assumes it to be about eigth or ninth century AD.

50 The Buddha expected his disciples to adhere to same rudimentary philosophical tenets described in various

miscellaneous teachings. He soundly emphasised the magnitude of having an unanimously agreed religious or
philosophical thought within the community of his disciples. Still, as he considered, disagreements regarding Doctrinal
facts were more harmful than disputes in disciplinary related issues (M III 33: Sāmagāma Sutta). His concerns were
proven by the fact that all the splits that happened during the first 3 centuries of the sāsana were wrought by disputes
in various Dhamma and Vinaya issues.

51 Norman 2008, 217.

52 What is a Presupposition | SIL Glossary of Linguistic Terms n.d.: A presupposition is background belief,
relating to an utterance, that must be mutually known or assumed by the speaker and addressee for the utterance to be
considered appropriate in context. Generally, it will remain a necessary assumption whether the utterance is placed in
the form of an assertion, denial, or question, and it can generally be associated with a specific lexical item or
grammatical feature (presupposition trigger) in the utterance.

53 S-ṭ I 75.

54 Norman 2008, 217.