7th Issue (March, 2008)

Some Thoughts on the Theravāda Exegetical Literature

Ven. Assaji Tanchangya

Introduction

The Exegetical (Commentarial) Literature or Aṭṭhakathā, which serves as the encyclopedia of Theravāda[1] Buddhism, provides the most complete and accurate information on the contents of the PāliCanon (Tipiṭaka). Almost all the Three Piṭakas (Collections) have their own Commentaries. The Suttapiṭaka (Collection of Discourses) contains altogether Nineteen Books, the Vinayapiṭaka (Collection of Disciplinary Rules) contains Five Books and lastly, the Abhidhammapiṭaka (Collection of Higher Doctrines) contains Seven Books.[2] To my understanding, the Commentaries have the best possible explanations of these Thirty One Books of the Canon. For, if I should give a teaching on a particular doctrinal matter in the Canon, without suggesting referral to the Commentaries (Exegesis), you would be easily taken away by my own dogmatism. They, therefore, protect the Buddha’s teachings from misinterpretation.

Recent funding has allowed a number of scholars to make several independent studies in this extensive field of literature. One that immediately came to my attention is Dr. E. W. Adikaram who has made a major contribution to the examination of the Pāli Aṭṭhakathā (commentaries) in their original sources. When using them, he attempted to reconstruct the history of Buddhism in Sri Lanka. There has also been extensive and comprehensive research by Dr. Friedgard Lotternmoser, Dr. Sodo Mori and Dr. T. Endo who have thrown much light on the development of Theravāda Buddhism reflected in the Canon (Tipiṭaka).[3] Here I shall give some thoughts on the Theravāda Exegetical Literature.

Its Origin and Development

The Aṭṭhakathās of the present day are recorded to have been composed in the 5th Century AD by some distinguished Commentators like Buddhaghosa, Dhammapāla, Buddhadatta and a few more. In India, the original Pāli Commentaries were lost. So these great monks were assigned by their respective Āchariyas to travel to Ceylon (Sri Lanka) to translate the then existing Sinhalese Commentaries back to the original Pāli. It is believed that the origin and development of Aṭṭhakathās was even much earlier. To make any sort of claim of the earlier origin of this Exegetical Literature would be quite speculative. However, considering the available canonical and exegetical sources with sound references, the factors that must have led to such literature can be traceable.

Firstly, we know that in the First Council, only the Dhamma and Vinaya were recited by 500 Arhants. There is no mention of the Abhidhammapiṭaka or the Aṭṭhakathās (Commentaries). However, between the Second and Third Council many things happened in the history of the Sāsana. The first schism occurred and with that many schools arose. With the help of Emperor Asoka[4] (273-232 B.C.), Buddhism was popularized and expanded. While it witnessed an important development, there were some serious side effects as well. Due to the many privileges given to those adhering to the Buddhist faith, heretics joined the Saṅgha and pretended to be real Buddhist monks. We know, realizing such exploitative behavior, the Third Council was convened, so that the heretics wouldn’t spoil the True Teachings.

Here it is reasonable to say that the Aṭṭhakathās (Commentaries) might have been composed in the Second and Third Councils as a means to protect the purity of the teachings of the Buddha. To support this idea, we can take Arhant Mahinda into our account. When he came to Sri Lanka, he brought along the Commentaries (Exegeses) with him. So it is clear that the Commentaries were available in India at that time and must have been composed between the Second and Third Councils.

Secondly, it was the traditional trend of the religious schools in India to have commentaries to their own canon. For example the Vedas have their own commentaries known as “Brāhmanas”. In the Upanishad as well, they have “Bhāshya” as their own commentary. In the same way, even in the Buddhist Canon, the disciples felt that Commentaries should be composed following this tradition.

Thirdly, another reason that might have led to the origin and development of the exegetical tradition is that the language used in the time of the Buddha cannot be understood in later periods. It must have changed in usage. So in order to make those words understandable, commentaries were composed.

The Canonical and Exegetical Difference

If we consider the scope of the broad canonical literature of the Pali Canon, the first characteristic that quickly appears is that the discourses are mostly given by Buddha and then there are also a handful of discourses given by his immediate disciples. The Buddha taught the Dhamma in different ways in the Canon. Pariyāya-desanā is a form of discourse that is given, explaining in different ways. Nippariyāya-desanā is explaining the Dhamma to a point. Sankhitta-desanā is explaining in brief which is subsequently continued by some expert disciples who are capable of further analyzing those brief discourses of the Buddha. Nītārtha-desanā is a teaching in which the meanings are already drawn out and explicit and there no need of further explanation. And lastly there is Neyārtha-desanā in which the meanings are not drawn neither out nor implicit. The meanings need to be further drawn out. So such teaching methods were used by Buddha in the Canon.

In the Cullavedallasutta, Bhikkhunī Dhammadinnā has given a discourse on the Noble Eight-fold Path and their connection with the Tisikkhā. There is also Ven. Sāriputta in the Sammādittisutta giving a discourse explaining broadly about the Right View. There are many such discourses given by the immediate disciples of the Buddha found in the canonical literature.

In the exegetical literature however, the presentation of the Dhamma is not usually by the Buddha, but by some well-versed monks. Taking one Sutta, these Commentators comment word by word. For example one that is very common in the Canonical Literature is the beginning remark by Ven. Ānanda: “Evaṁ me sutaṁ”. The Commentators will comment in details on who, where, when, what, why, to whom was this particular Sutta delivered. If the Commentators came across concepts like atta (self), kamma and so on, they would give the opinions of the Buddha and also opinions of others.

In the canon, there are same words appearing in many discourses like the word kamma, so the Commentators would combine all those descriptive meanings of the term and explain systematically. However, the Commentators do not give their own opinions. Instead they would explain that on such and such an occasion and place, Buddha had explained like this and like that.

Exegetical Characteristics of the Canon

If we look into the many discourses found in the Canon, we can find that there are many explanations, clarifications and interpretations given to the teachings of the Buddha. Some of the immediate disciples of the Buddha like Ven. Sāriputta, Anuruddha, Mahākaccayana and so on wanted to highlight the exact meanings of those words uttered by the Buddha. Therefore, sometimes we see those prominent disciples giving discourses highlighting those meanings, explaining in detail and clarifying those terms that appeared in the original discourses of the Buddha. Saccavibhaṅgasutta, dhātuvibhaṅgasutta, sammāditthisutta and kammavibhaṅgasutta are some of them.

Saccavibhaṅgasutta was delivered in a way to give a detailed explanation of the Dhammacakkhapavattanasutta. In this particular discourse, the disciple has added some additional parts to the original teaching of the Buddha. Satipaṭṭhānasutta is another example. The same sutta we find in two different Nikāyas is not exactly same. The Satipaṭṭhānasutta in Majjhimanikāya is different from the Satipaṭṭhānasutta in Samyuttanikāya. The Satipaṭṭhānasutta of the Majjhimanikāya is an addition to the Satipaṭṭhānasutta of the Samyuttanikāya. So if we consider the commentarial characteristics, we can see that even the original discourses of the Buddha found in the Canon have their own Commentaries.

Another example of commentarial character in the early discourses is the Cullavedallasutta of Majjhimanikāya given by Bhikkhunī Dhammadinnā, in which she explains how the Noble Eight-fold Path is connected to the Three Sikkhas (Disciplines). The explanation provided by her is not available in the discourses of the Buddha. There she not only explains the wider scope of the Three Sikkhas (Disciplines), but also the Phalas (fruits).

So all these are examples of exegetical characteristics found in the early discourses. Some have complete commentarial features. Mahāniddesa of Khuddakanikāya is a commentary to the Pārayanavagga of Suttanipāta. Patisaṁvidamagga also is an exposition added to the textual literature.

It is not only in the Sutta-pitaka, but also in the Vinaya-piṭaka and the Abhidhamma-piṭaka, that many exegetical characteristics are clearly seen. Abhidhamma-piṭaka as a whole is a kind of commentary. The contents of the first two books Dhammasanganī and Vibhanga can even be found in the Dasuttarasutta and Sangītisutta of Dīgha-nikāya. So even in the Abhidhamma-piṭaka, which was not directly expounded by the Buddha, we can find all terms used in the Suttas.

The importance of the Exegetical Literature

The importance of the commentaries reflects the very construction of the history of Theravāda Buddhism in a concise manner. For, the commentaries touch upon many social aspects, not only the teachings of the Buddha. Yes, they definitely are meant for explaining the difficult terms and teachings that appeared in the Canonical Literature. However, as a whole, the commentaries are a great means to access the Buddha’s biography, the history of Buddhist dispensation, geographical expansion in India, the political history of India from the 5th century BC to 3rd Century BC in particular, and then also the religious, cultural, social and economical history of Sri Lanka. In the Canonical literature, we have Cullavagga which gives information on the 1st and 2nd Councils. Parinibbānasutta also gives some details about the Buddha’s passing away, the cremation and the distribution of the relics to the neighboring states. Apart from these, we have no other sources, except the Commentarial Literature. Samantapāsādika and Sumangalavilāsinī contain much of the details about the important incidents which took place after the 2nd Buddhist Council up to the first Century AD.

Among the many Commentarial works, one that cannot be ignored is Visuddhimagga by commentator Buddhaghosa, which holds an important place more than the others. This is because the Visuddhimagga is a Commentary to all the Texts. Choosing one verse from a discourse of the Buddha as the subject topic, Buddhaghosa explains all the doctrinal aspects, related to both the theory and practice. For example:

“Sīle Patitthāya naro sappañño,
Cittaṁ paññaṁ ca bhāvaye
Ātāpi nipako bhikkhu
So imaṁ vijataye jaṭaṁ”

(When a wise man, established well in Virtue,
Develops Consciousness and Understanding,
Then as a bhikkhu ardent and sagacious
He succeeds in disentangling this tangle)[5]

In this particular verse, Buddhaghosa has incorporated all the teachings of the Buddha. In defining Sīla (morality), he mentions almost all the Suttas that talks about Sīla. The same thing also applies with regard to Citta, Pañña, and so on. In explaining Paticca-samuppāda (Dependent Co-arising), we can easily understand the admirable knowledge of Buddhaghosa with regard to the Canonical Literature. He never missed a single discourse relating to the discourses on Paticca-samuppāda (Dependent Co-arising) in Sutta-pitaka. The whole nidānavagga of Samyutta-nikāya is full of discourses on Paticca-samuppāda. Buddhaghosa has consulted not only the Suttas available in the Samyutta-nikāya but also the discourses that deal with the theory of Dependent Co-arising in the other Nikāya as well, for example: Mahānidānasutta, Mahāpadānasutta, and Mahātaṅhā-saṁkhayasutta.

Another important aspect of the Commentaries is the revelation of the history of Sri Lanka. Dr. E. W. Adikaram in his book ‘Early History of Buddhism in Ceylon’ states: “Not seldom has one to read scores of pages in a Commentary before one comes across a reference to a person or place or event connected with Ceylon.”[6] When Arhant Mahinda arrived in Ceylon with his companions, Devanampiya Tissa was the king of the Island who accepted and provided all the facilities to establish Buddhism in his kingdom. He arranged the occasion for Arhant Mahinda to have Dhamma Talks in well-attended assemblies. Most of the sons of the Sri Lankan families became monks and they were offered higher ordination at a newly constructed Sīma (boundaries) which is known as Mahāvihāra. The contribution made by Arhant Mahinda for the establishment and development of Buddhism in Sri Lanka is well described in the Commentaries.

Conclusion

The commentaries as further expositions on Buddhist doctrines serve as a great source of history of Theravāda Buddhism. But, as I have argued above, the main purpose of the Exegetical Literature was to protect the purity of the teachings of the Buddha in accordance with the way of Theravāda. The Commentators have commented discourse by discourse and presented the points of the Dhamma, their characteristics and purpose. They have used illustrations, provided historical accounts, pointed out if there were any synonymous words and gave grammatical explanations of some relevant terms that were found in the Canon. Since the earliest commentarial characteristics can be found within the Canon itself, therefore, the origin and development of the Exegetical Literature must have taken place much earlier than what we know. So the Commentaries are in fact nothing but the miscellaneous teachings of the Buddha.

Editor’s Note

Exegetical literature in Theravāda tradition is commonly known as the Pāli Commentaries (Pāli-Ațțhakathā). These Pāli Commentaries are composed by eminent Pāli commentators, such as Boddhaghosa, Buddhadatta, Dhammapāla, Mahānāma,and Upasena. Some of the original commentaries are incorporated and compiled in the Buddhist canonical texts of Theravāda tradition as Suttas. The original commentators are the foremost and immediate disciples of Gotama Buddha, such as Mahākaccāyana, Moggallāna and Ānanda and others. The original Indian Pāli commentaries were lost in India then and hitherto. The current Pāli commentaries were compiled from Sinhalese commentarial sources preserved by Mahāvihāra monastery during the 5th century C.E in Ceylon. The main sources of the Sinhalese commentaries are Mahā-ațțhakathā, Mahāpaccariya-ațțhakathā and Kurundī̄-ațțhakathā. The compilation of commentaries by Buddhaghosa, chief Pāli commentator, was strictly monitored by the Bhikkhus of Mahāvihara.

Bibliography

1. Adikaram, E.W.: Early History of Buddhism in Ceylon, The Buddhist Cultural Centre, Dehiwala, 1994.
2. Endo, Toshiichi: Buddha in Theravada Buddhism – A study on the Concept of Buddha in the Pāli Commentaries, The Buddhist Cultural Centre, Dehiwala, 2002.
3. Varma, Vishwanath Prasad: Early Buddhism and its Origin, published by Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2003.
4. Prof. Kapila Abhayawansa: Class Notes ‘Theravāda Exegetical Tradition’, International Buddhist College, 2008.
5. Nānamoli, Bhikkhu, translated from the Pāli: The Path of Purification (Visuddhimagga) by Bhadantācariya Buddhaghosa, published by The Penang Buddhist Association, Penang, 1999.
6. Journal of Buddhist Studies, published by the Centre for Buddhist Studies, Sri Lanka, Volume I, May, 2003.
7. Gunasekara, L.R.: Buddhist Commentarial Literature, Buddhist Publication Society, Kandy, 1976.
8. Malalasekara, G.P.: Pāli Literature of Ceylon, London, 1928.
9. Law, B.C.: A History of Pāli Literature, Vol.11, London, 1953.
10. Carter, J.R.: Dhamma: Western Academic and Sinhalese Buddhist Interpretation, Tokyo, 1978.
11. De Silva, Lily: ed. Dīghanikayathakathatika, Vol. 1 (PTS) 1970, General Introduction.