Part of a series on
Theravāda Buddhism
Dharmachakra
Countries
Texts
History
Schools
Doctrine
Key figures
Palm-leaf manuscript containing bi-lingual Atthakatha, with Pali text and Sinhalese translation. Sri Lanka, 1756. British Library

Aṭṭhakathā (Pali for explanation, commentary)[1] refers to Pali-language Theravadin Buddhist commentaries to the canonical Theravadin Tipitaka. These commentaries give the traditional interpretations of the scriptures. The major commentaries were based on earlier ones, now lost, in Prakrit and Sinhala, which were written down at the same time as the Canon, in the last century BCE. Some material in the commentaries is found in canonical texts of other schools of Buddhism, suggesting an early common source.

According to K.R. Norman:

There is no direct evidence that any commentarial material was in fact recited at the first council, but there is clear evidence that some parts of the commentaries are very old, perhaps even going back to the time of the Buddha, because they afford parallels with texts which are regarded as canonical by other sects, and must therefore pre-date the schisms between the sects. As has already been noted, some canonical texts include commentarial passages, while the existence of the Old Commentary in the Vinaya-pitaka and the canonical status of the Niddesa prove that some sort of exegesis was felt to be needed at a very early stage of Buddhism.[2]

As with the Canon itself, the contents of collected editions of the Theravadin commentaries, compiled from the fourth century CE onwards, vary between editions. The minimal collection, found in the Thai edition (1992) includes the following (Skilling 2002).

In addition, the following are included in one or both of the other two editions: the Burmese Chatthasangayana edition (a list of contents can be found in Thein Han 1981) and the Sinhalese Simon Hewavitarne Bequest edition.

Buddhaghosa

Below is a listing of fourth- or fifth-century CE commentator Buddhaghosa's fourteen alleged commentaries (Pāli: atthakatha) on the Pāli Tipitaka (Norman 1983).

Pali Tipitaka Commentary
from the
Vinaya Pitaka 		Vinaya (general) Samantapāsādikā
Patimokkha Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī
or Māṭikaṭṭhakathā
from the
Sutta Pitaka 		Digha Nikaya Sumaṅgalavilāsinī
Majjhima Nikaya Papañcasūdani
Samyutta Nikaya Sāratthappakāsinī
Anguttara Nikaya Manorathapūraṇī
from the
Khuddaka
Nikaya 		Khuddakapatha Paramatthajotikā (I)
Dhammapada Dhammapada-aṭṭhakathā
Sutta Nipata Paramatthajotikā (II),[3]
or Suttanipāta-aṭṭhakathā
Jataka Jātaka-aṭṭhavaṇṇā,
or Jātaka-aṭṭhakathā
from the
Abhidhamma
Pitaka 		Dhammasangani Aṭṭhasālinī
Vibhanga Sammohavinodanī
Dhatukatha Pañcappakaṇaraṭṭhakathā
Puggalapannatti
Kathavatthu
Yamaka
Patthana

Only the Visuddhimagga and the commentaries on the first four nikayas are accepted by a consensus of scholars as Buddhaghosa's.[4]

Dhammapala

The commentator Dhammapala's date is uncertain. He wrote after Buddhaghosa, and probably no later than the 7th century.[5] His Khuddaka Nikaya commentaries are Paramatthadipani comprising

Other Khuddaka Nikaya commentaries

Other Khuddaka Nikaya commentaries are

Three books are included in some editions of the Khuddaka Nikaya: Nettipakarana, Petakopadesa and Milindapañha. Of these only the Nettipakarana has a commentary in any standard edition.

Translations

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Rhys Davids & Stede (1921–25), pp. 24-25, entry for Attha defines aṭṭhakathā as "exposition of the sense, explanation, commentary...."
  2. ^ Norman, K.R. (1983) Pali Literature, p. 119. Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.
  3. ^ In fact this commentary did not originally have this title, but it has become traditionally known by it. Hinüber (1996/2000), p. 129 sec. 255, writes:
    Neither the author nor even a title is mentioned in Pj [Paramattha-jotika] II .... Thus, originally Pj II was anonymous, and moreover like Dhp-a [Dhammapada-atthakatha] and Ja [Jataka-atthavannana] was without an individual title: Pj might have been chosen at a later date because large parts overlapped with Pj I. [That is, because much of the Khuddakapatha is taken from the Sutta Nipata]. This connected this commentary to Pj I....
    On the whole, however, Pj I and Pj II are so different that it is difficult to imagine a common author.
  4. ^ For instance, regarding the Khuddha Nikaya commentaries, Hinüber (1996/2000), pp. 130–1, sect. 259, 260, writes:
    Neither Pj [Paramattha-jotika] I nor Pj II can be dated, not even in relation to each other, except that both presuppose Buddhaghosa. In spite of the 'Buddhaghosa colophon' added to both commentaries ... no immediate relation to Buddhaghosa can be recognized.... Both Ja [Jataka-atthavannana] and Dhp-a [Dhammapada-atthakatha] are traditionally ascribed to Buddhaghosa, an assumption which has been rightly questioned by modern research....
  5. ^ See Encyclopedia of Buddhism Vol.4, p. 502-503.

Sources

External links

Topics in Buddhism
Category