Aṭṭhakathā (Pali for explanation, commentary)[1] refers to Pali-languageTheravadin Buddhist commentaries to the canonical TheravadinTipitaka. These commentaries give the traditional interpretations of the scriptures. The major commentaries were based on earlier ones, now lost, inPrakrit andSinhala, which were written down at the same time as the Canon, in the last centuryBCE. Some material in the commentaries is found in canonical texts of otherschools of Buddhism, suggesting an early common source.
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).
Commentaries byDhammapala on seven books of the Khuddaka Nikaya.
Four commentaries by various authors on four other books of the Khuddaka Nikaya.
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.
ThePatimokkha (Pruitt & Norman 2001, page xxxvi) and its commentary Kankhavitarani, ascribed to Buddhaghosa
Commentary by Dhammapala on theNettipakarana, a work sometimes included in the canon.
Vinayasangaha, a selection of passages from Samantapasadika arranged topically by Sariputta in the twelfth century (Crosby 2006).
Saratthasamuccaya, commentary on theParitta. In Sinhalese (Malalasekera 1938).
In addition, there are treatises like Buddhaghosa'sVisuddhimagga, a systematic presentation of the traditional teaching. This work, noted in both Sinhalese (Moriet al. 1994) and Burmese traditions, is sometimes loosely referred to as a "commentary" on the first four nikāyas for the material it details, although it is not traditionally considered as an "Aṭṭhakathā" (seePakaranavisesa).
Below is a listing of fourth- or fifth-century CE commentator Buddhaghosa's fourteen alleged commentaries (Pāli:atthakatha) on thePāli Tipitaka (Norman 1983).
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 :
Udana-atthakatha regarding the Udana.
Itivuttaka-atthakatha regarding the Itivuttaka.
Vimanavatthu-atthakatha regarding the Vimanavatthu.
Petavatthu-atthakatha regarding the Petavatthu.
Theragatha-atthakatha regarding the Theragatha.
Therigatha-atthakatha regarding the Therigatha.
Cariyapitaka-atthakatha regarding the Cariyapitaka.
Three books are included in some editions of the Khuddaka Nikaya:Nettipakarana,Petakopadesa andMilindapañha. Of these only the Nettipakarana has a commentary in any standard edition.
Commentary on Mulapariyaya Sutta, abr tr Bodhi inThe Discourse on the Root of Existence, BPS, Kandy, 1980. Available for free downloadhere.
Commentary onSammaditthi Sutta, tr Nanamoli inThe Discourse on Right View, BPS, Kandy, 1991. Available for free download.here
Commentary onSatipatthana Sutta, trSoma inThe Way of Mindfulness, Saccanubodha Samiti, Kandy, 1941; reprinted BPS, Kandy. Available for free download @here.
Manorathapurani (parts): stories of leading nuns and laywomen, tr Mabel Bode inJournal of the Royal Asiatic Society, new series, volume XXV, pages 517-66 & 763–98
Paramatthajotika onKhuddakapatha, tr Nanamoli as "The illustrator of ultimate meaning", in 1 volume with "The minor readings" (Khuddakapatha), 1960, PTS, Oxford.
Stories giving background to verses, tr E. W. Burlingame asBuddhist Legends, 1921, 3 volumes,Harvard Oriental Series; reprinted PTS, Oxford.
Explanations of verses, translated in the Dhammapada translation by John Ross Carter & Mahinda Palihawadana, Oxford University Press, 1987; included only in the hardback edition, not the paperback World Classics edition.
Udana commentary tr Peter Masefield, 1994–5, 2 volumes, PTS, Oxford.
Itivuttaka commentary tr Peter Masefield, 2008–2009, 2 vols., PTS, Oxford.
Vimanavatthu commentary, tr Peter Masefield asVimana Stories, 1989, PTS, Oxford.
Petavatthu commentary, tr U Ba Kyaw & Peter Masefield asPeta-Stories, 1980, PTS, Oxford.
Theragatha commentary: substantial extracts translated inPsalms of the Brethren, tr C. A. F. Rhys Davids, 1913; reprinted inPsalms of the Early Buddhists, PTS, Oxford.
Therigatha commentary, tr asThe Commentary on the Verses of the Theris, by William Pruitt, 1998, PTS, Oxford.
Introduction tr asThe Story of Gotama Buddha by N. A. Jayawickrama, 1990, PTS, Oxford.
Most of the rest is translated in the Jataka translation by E. B. Cowellet al., 1895–1907, 6 volumes, Cambridge University Press; reprinted in 3 volumes by PTS, Oxford.
^Norman, K.R. (1983)Pali Literature, p. 119. Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.
^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 theKhuddakapatha is taken from theSutta 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.
^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....
.svg)