Talk:Atthakatha

Is the Visuddhimagga part of the "Pali commentaries" ?

Well, it took ten days: on May 10^th, the only document that this article actually identified as a commentary was the Visuddhimagga; now, the Visuddhimagga has been removed completely (while 26 other volumes have been added).

Personally, I've seen the Visuddhimagga mentioned both as part of the commentaries and as apart from (in addition to) the commentaries. (I've tentatively been playing around in my head with the idea that different Theravada societies perhaps categorize it differently.) My own opinion is that the Visuddhimagga is of a significantly different character from (other?) commentarial literature: while (from what I've seen) the other identified commentaries provide line-by-line analysis and pertinent (if sometimes apochryphal) historical accounts, the Visuddhimagga is much more a compendium/compilation of knowledge, structured grossly on the three-fold training, rather loosely based upon a singular sutta, and perhaps somewhat related to the Vimuttimagga (although with much greater detail on prajna-related matters).

Regardless, I believe that the Visuddhimagga -- especially given that it is the most important Pali text after the Tipitaka itself in places such as Myanmar, etc. -- either needs to be mentioned in this article (possibly with the caveat that not all cultures think of it as a commentary) or, at the very least, in the Template:TheravadaBuddhism (from where the Visuddhimagga was also recently deleted). Please share with me your thoughts on this so we could reach a learned and stable resolution. Thanks so much! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See current revision, where I've corrected most of the errors (mis?)copied from the website. No time now, so I'll deal with translations later. Peter jackson 14:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter - Thanks! The new material looks excellent. - Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, just for the sake of completeness, prior discussion on this matter regarding the inclusion/deletion of the Visuddhimagga from the Template:TheravadaBuddhism can be found at User_talk:Larry_Rosenfeld/sandbox1 and Template_talk:TheravadaBuddhism#Visuddhimagga removal. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly more than one legitimate way to map out the commentaries. You can take a look at this summary of the structure of the A.t.thakathaa here:

http://pali.pratyeka.org/commentaries-map.jpg

The Visuddhimagga thus helps to show how the other works are inter-related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.52.5.107 (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diacritics

I don't think it's right to give Pali words with only some of their diacritics. It should be either all or none. I prefer to give both forms at first occurrence & may get round to that here. A partially pointed form gives a misleading impression of being the fully pointed one. Peter jackson 10:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Previously (when I initially created the table in the Buddhaghosa article [based on information in and probably influenced by the format of a table in the sporadically cited Bullitt (2002)]), I would only type in diacriticals that my own display would show and I thought having some was better than none to assist with pronunciations; however, my computer now shows all diacriticals and, regardless, I agree with your point about using some-not-all diacriticals as being misleading. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused. Thanks for the corrections. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templatizing table?

Once the table in this article is ironed out, I'm thinking of making it a template (or, if someone else is inclined to do so, please do) so that it can be simply transcluded here and in Buddhaghosa, thus obviating the need to make identical corrections in two different articles. Any thoughts or concerns about this? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tikas

Peter - I continue to be awed at your breadth of knowledge and pertinent resources. Bravo! In regards to the latest addition you made, I see you reference http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/archive.htm. This interesting and valuable resource mentions the subcommentaries. Do you think it would be out of place for me (or anyone) to add them to this article? (In other words, I think they are worthy of mention, but I don't think they merit their own article; however, if added here, should this article's title be changed to something like "Atthakatha and Tikas," etc., etc.?) Any advice? Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who might happen upon this thread, please see Peter's recently created article, Subcommentaries, Theravada. Well done Peter! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Errors

seems to be an error in this sentence: "As with the Canon itself, the contents of collected editions of the Theravadin commentaries, compiled from the fourth century CE onwards, vary between editions."

Shouldn't it be first century BCE?? the info in collected editions should probably start growing as soon as the text were first written. why does this not indicate until 4 centuries later? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poikiloid (talk • contribs) 15:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My wording could perhaps be improved. I think the situation is that the commentaries were compiled insubstantially their present form from the 4th or 5th century on. They contain earlier material, some of it very early indeed. Peter jackson (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baffled

Trying to figure out -- is the Jatakatthavannana the Jataka or the commentaries, or both ? --InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jataka in the strict sense, the book of the Pali Canon, consists almost entirely of verses. The commentary, Jatakatthavannana, gives the stories, with the verses embedded. As the verses are often hard to make sense of without the stories, people tend to read the commentary rather than the canonical book, and it tends to be loosely called the Jataka. Peter jackson (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-commentary

I just want to know about the sub-commentary in Theravada Buddhism 27.55.68.205 (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aṭṭhakathā, Ṭīkā, and Añña

It seems that the aṭṭhakathā and ṭīkā terms are only used strictly for the commentaries and sub-commentaries of the books that have a mūla (the referenced main book must also be there in the canonical Pāli Canon).

Is it possible to separate the "sub-commentaries" and "other-commentaries" as two different Wiki articles to make them comply the official/canonical categorization? Any thoughts? Faredoka (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, nvm, Pali literature has already covered all of the texts. Faredoka (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]