The Majjhimanikaya sub-commentary (Majjhimanikaya Atthakatha Tika) in Sinhala script and its place in the commentarial tradition of Sri Lankan Buddhism

Abstract

This thesis addresses a substantial issue regarding the sub-commentaries (tikas) to the four main Pali nikayas: Do there exist two complete sets of sub-commentaries to the four nikayas, namely an ‘old’ set of four (puraoaþika) and a ‘new’ set of four (navaþika), as claimed by some present-day Pali scholars; or is there just a single set, as previously accepted by traditional Pali scholarship? I address this question by examining two sample sutta sub-commentaries – those to the Kakacupamasutta (MN 21) and the Alagaddupamasutta (MN 22) of the Majjhimanikaya Aþþhakatha Þika (MAÞ) – as preserved in nine Sinhala-script palm-leaf manuscripts, and comparing them with the corresponding text in the Burmese Chaþþhasaogayana edition published in 1997 (CD-ROM). According to Laokave Puskoya Pot Namavaliya, Somadasa’s 1959 catalogue of manuscripts held in Sri Lankan monastery libraries and similar locations, my nine sample manuscripts of Majjhimanikaya Aþþhakatha Tika include both ‘old’ and ‘new’ tikas. My analysis of the nine is intended not only to confirm or disconfirm that report but also to assess the validity of the wider claim that the distinction between ‘old’ and ‘new’ tikas applies for all four nikayas. Each of the nine mss is compared, word by word, with the Chaþþhasaogayana edition as base-text, and all cases of disagreement are recorded. The two sample sutta sub-commentaries are initially examined separately; then the two sets of results are brought together in the subsequent analysis. In the examination particular attention is paid to any conspicuous departures from the base-text, for example, any missing sections of text. Seeming discrepancies are critically analysed and discussed in the light of the corresponding sutta and commentary (aþþhakatha). Broad patterns of agreement and disagreement are identified by tracking recurring groups of mss that possess shared features, particularly shared errors. This leads to recognition that, in each of the two sutta-tikas, the nine mss fall into the same three clearly recognizable groups. On this basis the nine are located within a stemma or ‘family tree’. This text-critical part of the analysis is carried out with due regard for the text’s historical and social background. The findings thus arrived at are then considered in the light of the claimed distinction between ‘old’ and ‘new’ sub-commentaries. It is shown, first, that the relationships among the nine mss, as depicted in the stemma, do not correlate at all with the classification into ‘old’ and ‘new’ presented in Somadasa’s catalogue. It is also shown that the disagreements among the three identified ms. groups are not so marked or so extensive as to indicate two distinct tikas by two different authors; nor do the disagreements provide any grounds for characterizing one group as ‘old’ and another as ‘new’. The principal research question having been addressed, I turn to the associated question of authorship. Since at least the 12th century the authorship of nikayaþikas, particularly MAÞ, has been confusedly ascribed to two different individuals, Acariya Dhammapala and Sariputta of Poyonnaruva. I address this issue by considering the statements made in Pali bibliographical sources in the light of the findings of my research into the two sample sutta-tikas.