Petra Kieffer-Pülz, "The Ganthārambhakathā of Upasena's Saddhammapajjotikā and Vajirabuddhi's...

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009 DOI: 10.1163/001972409X12562030836778

Indo-Iranian Journal 52 (2009) 143–177 brill.nl/iij

!e Gantharambhakathas ofUpasena’s Saddhammapajjotika andVajirabuddhi’s Vajirabuddhi

˙tıka1

Petra Kieffer-PülzMartin-Luther-Universität, Halle-Wittenberg

e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

0e introduction to the oldest Vinaya subcommentary of the0eravadins, Vajira-buddhi’s undated Vajirabuddhi

˙tıka (after the 7th, before the 12th centuries) has

a parallel in Upasena’s Saddhammapajjotika, a commentary on the Niddesa (877). A detailed comparison of this otherwise not transmitted passage that describesand defines a perfect speaker (vatta) makes it plain that the text of the Saddhamma-pajjotika as it has come down to us is heavily corrupted. It, furthermore, madeprobable that the Vajirabuddhi

˙tıka borrowed this passage from the Saddhamma-

pajjotika before the corruption of the latter.0us we have the 9th century as aterminus post quem for the origin of the Vajirabuddhi

˙tıka.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009.

KeywordsUpasena, Saddhammapajjotika, Niddesa-A

˙t˙thakatha, Vajirabuddhi, Vajirabuddhi-

˙tıka, Vinaya commentary, Vinaya,0eravada, Dhammapala, vyañjanapa

˙tha, attha-

pa˙tha, pa

˙tha

Introduction

Upasena’s Saddhammapajjotika (henceforth Nidd-a), a commentary on theNiddesas, in turn a comment on three sections (vaggas) of the Suttanipata,

1) 0is article is an outcome of my work on “Die in der Vajirabuddhi˙tıka zitierten Ga

˙n˙thi-

padas: ein annotierter Zitatenkatalog zur Geschichte der Rechtsentwicklung bei den0era-vadin” (0e Ga

˙n˙thipadas quoted in the Vajirabuddhi

˙tıka: an annotated catalogue of quota-

tions concerning the history of the legal development of the0eravadins) at the Institute for

http://brill.nl/iij

144 Petra Kieffer-Pülz / Indo-Iranian Journal 52 (2009) 143–177

at first sight has nothing in common with Vajirabuddhi’s Vajirabuddhi˙tıka

(henceforth Vjb), the oldest of the extant sub-commentaries on the Vina-yapi

˙taka. Upasena occasionally refers to the Vinaya,2 but his references to

the Vinaya commentary, Samantapasadika, are only secondary adoptionsfrom Buddhaghosa’s commentaries on the great Nikayas of the Suttapi-

˙taka.3 What, however, connects Nidd-a and Vjb is a section of their respec-tive introductions, the Gantharambhakathas, which they have in common.0e Gantharambhakatha of Vjb consists of only two parts, namely theintroductory verses (Vjb 1,5–18) and a detailed definition of the charac-teristic features of a proper speaker (vatta, Vjb 1,19–4,21). 0is secondportion has a parallel in the third section of the Gantharambhakatha ofNidd-a (I 5,28–9,5). No other Pali work shares this text passage, and evensingle words appearing in deviating variants in both texts are mostly hapaxlegomena.

0e question is whether Nidd-a and Vjb quoted this passage from acommon source, or whether one of them borrowed it from the other. SinceNidd-a can be dated with some probability to the year 877,4 whereasVjb is undated, the answer to this question would also help us determinethe date of Vjb.

Before comparing the common section shared by both texts, we will firsthave a look at the texts and their authors.

Indology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, promoted by Deutsche Forschungs-gemeinschaft. I thank Reinhold Grünendahl (Göttingen) and Jonathan Silk (Leiden) fortheir suggestions and for improving and correcting my English.2) Nidd-a II 261,25 refers to Vin III 21,3; 28,9. But there are also Vinaya references whichmay be taken over from other commentaries, e.g. Nidd-a II 432,32–33 = As 377,20–22 ~Pa˙tis-a I 232,11–12.

3) Nidd-a I 116,12–119,5 = Ps (CSCD) I 198–202 = Spk (CSCD) II 145–148; shorterparallels Sv (CSCD) I 80, As 97,12–99,19; Nidd-a II 398,13–29 = Vibh-a (CSCD) 334.4) See O. v. Hinüber, who in addition to the date given in the Nigamana of Nidd-a alsotook into account the reference to a scribe (lekha/mahalekha) named Kittisena/Sena whounder Sena II gave viharas to monks (vonHinüber 1996 §287).Malalasekera 1994 (original1928), 116 f. does not give a date; Jayawardhana 1994: 128, dates the text to the year 433by identifying the king with Mahanama (407–429). 0is king, however, did not reign for26 years, and is excluded by the simple fact that Nidd-a quotes from several A

˙t˙thakathas,

and is modelled after the Saddhammapakasinı (henceforth Pa˙tis-a), the commentary on the

Pa˙tisambhidamagga which, also with good reasons, is dated to the year 559/499 (von

Hinüber 1996 §291). Warder (Pa˙tis-transl. xlv) dated Nidd-a to the 6th century by

identifying Sirisanghabodhi with Aggabodhi I who, following Geiger’s (1986: 225, no. 27)list of Ceylonese kings, did not take this title.

Petra Kieffer-Pülz / Indo-Iranian Journal 52 (2009) 143–177 145

!e Vajirabuddhi˙tıka

Nothing is known about Vajirabuddhi, the author of the undated Vjb.5He might well have been of South Indian origin,6 but in any case wasacquainted with customs, practices and texts written in Sri Lanka.7 He isgenerally dated after the 7th and before the 12th centuries . 0e latterdate is a fixed terminus ante quem, because Sariputta of Po

˙lonnaruva, active

during the reign of Parakkamabahu I (1153–1186), quotes Vajirabud-dhi’s text. 0e earlier date, however, is based on the quotation of a gram-matical rule attributed to Kaccayana (ca. 7th century ), and is not ascertain as one might wish.8 Vajirabuddhi was an independent author, col-lecting and bundling different opinions on various subjects in order that thereader might himself decide which to follow. Only rarely does he presenthis own opinion, and then he generally is very restrained.

!e Saddhammapajjotika

Upasena, the author of the Saddhammapajjotika, according to his ownstatement in the Nigamana, was a monk who lived in the Mahavihara inAnuradhapura, and wrote his commentary on theNiddesas in the 26th yearof King Sirinivasa Sirisanghabodhi (Nidd-a III 152,1). As von Hinüber haspointed out, only Sena II reigned long enough (851–885) to fit into thattime-frame, which suggests 877 as the date of its composition. It has

5) 0is is the title under which the text is quoted by later authors. Vajirabuddhi him-self classifies it as a Ga

˙n˙thipada when he explains that his text is “a display of diffi-

cult spots” (ga˙n˙thi˙t˙thanavikasana) of the Vinaya-A

˙t˙thakatha (Vjb 584,8), which he clar-

ifies as “an explanation of the intention of the difficult words in the Samantapasadika”(Samantapasadikaya ga

˙n˙thipadadhippayappakasana, Vjb 585,5).

6) Although the passage quoted by von Hinüber (von Hinüber 1996 §371) as evidence isin fact quoted from the Anuga

˙n˙thipada (Vjb 359,10ff.), written by a (perhaps different)

Vajirabuddhi, and thus is not necessarily evidence for the regional location of Vjb.7) For example Dhammasiri’s Khuddasikkha.8) Vjb 36,3 (tatiyaparajikadısu iccham’ aha

˙m, bhikkhave, addhamasa

˙m pa

˙tisallıyitun ti (Vin

III 68,7–8) evamadısu da˙t˙thabba. tasma dutiya kaladdhane accantasa

˙myoge ti (Kacc 300;

CSCD 298, 287) dutiyatra sambhavati masam adhıte, divasam adhıte ti yatha) in fact picksup Kaccayana’s Sutta 300 (kaladdhanam accantasamyoge, cf. Bollée 1969: 834, n. 69), butnot literally. 0us the quotation in Vjb also could be a translation of Pa

˙nini’s A

˙s˙tadhyayı

(2,3.5: kaladhvanor atyantasa˙myoge).0at Vajirabuddhi was familiar with Sanskrit texts and

capable of translating them into Pali he shows by quoting a verse from the Upani˙sads (Vjb

26,28–30; source given as “Veda”, cf. Bollée 1969: 834, n. 69). 0e same verse is quotedonly once more in Pali literature, namely without source in Dhammapala’s old

˙tıka on the

Majjhimanikaya (Papañcasudanıpora˙na˙tıka; Ps-p

˙t, CSCD, II 75).


been known for a long time that Upasena relies heavily on predecessors.A.P. Buddhadatta, in the preface to his edition of Nidd-a (1931, 1939),observed that Upatissa extracted passages fromDhammapala’s commentaryon the Suttanipata “without any alteration”, and that he had gone so far asto mechanically take over cross references to other parts of the Suttanipatacommentary although they were meaningless in the new context of Nidd-a(Nidd-a I, p. VIII;9 see also von Hinüber 1996 §289). O. von Hinüber(1996 §287) hinted at the fact that the Nigamana of Nidd-a “was builton the model of the one in Pa

˙tis-a”. Furthermore, von Hinüber assumed

that Upasena borrowed parts of Dhammapala’s commentary on the Udanafor the last portion of his introduction to Nidd-a (Nidd-a I 9,27–10,17 ~Ud-a 4,10ff.) and for the explanation of tathagata given in Nidd-a (Nidd-a I 177,33–184,10 ~ Ud-a 128,4–155,28). Based on this fact he placesDhammapala before Upasena, which, if these parallels are the only argu-ment, cannot be upheld.10 For a quotation from the old A

˙t˙thakatha (Nidd-

a II 300,23ff.) von Hinüber (1996 §290) suggested the Visuddhimaggaas a possible source. 0ese three passages, however, have exactly matchingcounterparts in the Saddhammappakasinı,11 in the case of the verse fromthe old A

˙t˙thakatha Pa

˙tis-a—contrary to the Visuddhimagga—even men-

tions the source, which makes it more probable that Upasena borrowedthese passages from Pa

˙tis-a.

0e closeness of agreement between Nidd-a and Pa˙tis-a actually extends

to the composition of the introduction. In the first section of Nidd-a,namely the twelve verses (Nidd-a I 1,6–2,16), verses 5cd, 6, 9, 10, and12 are literally taken over from Pa

˙tis-a,12 with only slight adjustments of

passages containing text names (verses 5 and 12). Verse 5cd, a sloka inNidd-a (pa

˙tho visi

˙t˙tho niddeso, tannamavisesato ca, Nidd-a I 1,16) is built on

the model of the Tri˙s˙tubh verse in Pa

˙tis-a (pa

˙tho visi

˙t˙tho pa

˙tisambhidana

˙m

maggo ti tannamavisesato ca, Pa˙tis-a I 2,3–4). Both texts open the subse-

9) 0is statement refers to Nidd-a II 315,3–13 = Pj II 548,11–22, containing a referenceto Pj II 359,25–361,27, which however is not quoted in Nidd-a.10) von Hinüber 1996 §§288, 306, and see §307 for his tentative relative chronology,where he places Dhammapala after 550 (date of Pa

˙tis-a), and before 877 (date of

Nidd-a). Since the relevant text passages are also—and more congruently—transmitted inPa˙tis-a (see below), they are no telling argument for dating Dhammapala before Nidd-a,

and this terminus ante quem then cannot be sustained.11) Nidd-a I 9,9–10,24 = Pa

˙tis-a 8,21–10,6; Nidd-a I 177,33–186,29 = Pa

˙tis-a 207,5–

215,38; Nidd-a I 300,10–302,31 = Pa˙tis-a 648,11–650,16.

12) See Appendix I for references.


quent section by quoting this line. Whereas Nidd-a (I 2,17) takes pa˙tho

visi˙t˙tho as a starting point for the following commentary on pa

˙tho, Pa

˙tis-

a (I 2,21) begins with the latter part of the line (pa˙tisambhidana

˙m maggo

ti tannamavisesato ca), and explains the pa˙tisambhidas. Upasena ends his

introduction with a passage that again has an exact parallel (adjusted namesapart) in Pa

˙tis-a (Nidd-a I 9,9–10,24 = Pa

˙tis-a 8,20–10,5). 0us Upasena

evidently modelled his introduction after that of Pa˙tis-a.13 In addition,

the parallels between Nidd-a and other Pali texts14 confirm that Upasenaborrowed from other works, and that he seldom cared tomodify the quotedtext.15

0e second section of the introduction of Nidd-a (I 2,17–5,26) dealswith the term pa

˙tha, literally “text, reading, variant”. In other texts pada,

“term, word”16 is used instead, which makes one suspect that pa˙tha is

used in the latter sense here, too. Two types of pa˙tha are distinguished,

vyañjanapa˙tha, “text [concerning] the formulation”,17 and atthapa

˙tha, “text

[concerning] the meaning”. Each of these pa˙thas again comprises six terms.

Vyañjanapa˙tha is explained as covering akkhara “letter”, pada “word, term”,

vyañjana “formulation, phrase”, akara “mode, moods”, nirutti “language”,and niddesa “specification, demonstration”. Atthapa

˙tha is divided into san-

kasana/°a˙m “explaining, highlighting”, pakasana “displaying, makingman-

ifest”, vivara˙na “divulging, revealing”, vibhajana “analysing, classifying”,

uttanıkara˙na “exhibiting, clarifying”, and paññatti “describing, making

known”. Upasena gives two to four explanations for each of these twelveterms, quoting canonical passages as samples.

13) Perhaps he also chose the title of his book accordingly: Saddhammapajjotika (Nidd-a)and Saddhammappakasinı (Pa

˙tis-a). O. von Hinüber suggests that the title may have been

coined after that of the Paramatthajjotika (= Suttanipata-A˙t˙thakatha; von Hinüber 1996

§287).14) Buddhadatta (Nidd-a I, p. viii) hints at parallels with the Visuddhimagga, the Sammo-havinodanı (Vibhanga-A

˙t˙thakatha) and the Paramatthajjotika II (Suttanipata-A

˙t˙thakatha),

which he has incorporated in the critical apparatus.0ere are also parallels in the Atthasalinı(Dhammasangaha-A

˙t˙thakatha), etc.; see below, Appendix I.

15) Whether this holds true for the whole text only a comparison of the whole will be ableto prove. I only made random samples.16) Nett-a (CSCD) 42; Sp I 127,14–16 = Pj II II 445,16–19 = Nidd-a II (CSCD) 23 =Vism 214,16–19; etc.17) Ña

˙namoli translates vyañjanapada as “phrasing-term” (Nett-transl. xxxi) respectively

“term [concern(ing)] the phrasing” (Nett-transl. 19), and atthapada as “meaning-term” or“term [concern(ing)] the meaning”. Masefield chose the translations “formulation-word”and “meaning-word” (Ud-a-transl. I 22 f.; It-a-transl. I 55).


0ese twelve terms are explained in Dhammapala’s commentary on theNettipakara

˙na,18 in the commentaries on the Samantapasadika,19 and in

the Visuddhimaggamaha˙tıka.20 In a nutshell: the definitions and examples

of Nidd-a deviate from those in the Nettipakara˙na-a

˙t˙thakatha.21 Vjb gives

one explanation for each term, which generally is included among thetwo to four explanations of Nidd-a. 0e Saratthadıpanı has parallels forthe whole second section of the introduction of Nidd-a (Sp-

˙t I 327,14–

330,10), but casually omits phrases and adds others, e.g. from the Netti-A˙t˙thakatha.22 Since we know that Sariputta consulted Nidd-a,23 we may

assume that he borrowed the whole passage from there and supplementedit with information from the Netti-A

˙t˙thakatha. 0e definitions in Co

˙liya

Kassapa’s Vimativinodanı˙tıka (Vmv) are very brief; only single words are

paralleled in Nidd-a. Evidently the Saratthadıpanı is the only text which toa certain extent parallels the second portion of the Gantharambhakatha ofNidd-a.0is implies that Upasena either borrowed this passage from someunknown source or wrote it independently.24 Judging the relation of Nidd-a and Vjb from this second part of the introduction, one could perceiveNidd-a as the younger text, because it always includes the explanationscontained in Vjb, but, additionally, contains still more definitions. 0is,however, would be dangerous, because Vajirabuddhi explicitly states that heexplains the terms “in brief ” (sankhepato, Vjb 43,12), as does the definitelyyounger Vimativinodanı

˙tıka (I 65,8).

18) Nett-a (CSCD) 31 f.19) Vajirabuddhi’s Vajirabuddhi

˙tıka (undated; before 12th century), Sariputta’s Saratthadı-

panı (12th century) and Co˙lıya Kassapa’s Vimativinodanı

˙tıka (13th century).

20) Vism-m˙t, CSCD, I 273. A shorter version than that in the Saratthadıpanı.

21) For example pada, subdivided into four types of pada by the Netti-A˙t˙thakatha (Nett-a,

[CSCD] 32), or, the canonical quotation given in Nidd-a (I 3,18–20) for nirutti which isused in the Netti-A

˙t˙thakatha for namapada.

22) 0e Saratthadıpanı (Sp-˙t I 329,9ff.) for example also lists the four types of pada named

in the Netti-A˙t˙thakatha (Nett-a, CSCD, 32), and partly includes the explanations.

23) He quotes author and text by name (Sp-˙t I 95,24).

24) 0is second section of the introduction of Nidd-a ends with Upasena’s explanation ofvyañjanapa

˙tha and atthapa

˙tha from the point of view of “meaning” (atthato). According to

that “a sound (sadda) of the Buddhas who teach the dhamma, which is accompagnied byan intimation and explains a meaning is a vyañjanapa

˙tha. An idea (dhamma) which is to be

understood together with its characteristics, its rasa etc. by means of the vyañjanapa˙tha is

an atthapa˙tha.”


Comparison of the!ird Portion of the Introduction of theSaddhammapajjotika with the Second Part of the Introductionof the Vajirabuddhi

˙tıka

0e third portion of the Gantharambhakatha of Nidd-a, introduced bythe words puna pi,25 offers a short alternative explanation of pa

˙tha (Nidd-

a I 6,3–13 = Vjb 2,6ff.). Explanations of attha (Nidd-a I 6,14–7,12),asa

˙mhıro (Nidd-a I 7,13–17), sucı (Nidd-a I 7,17–26), amaccharo (Nidd-

a I 7,26–81) and catunna˙m apariccagı (Nidd-a I 8,1–6) follow. 0e con-

nection between pa˙tha on the one hand and these terms on the other is

not immediately evident, which begs the question why these terms are dis-cussed here at all.0e parallel in Vjb clarifies the situation.0e alternativedefinition of pa

˙tha is the starting point of a commentary on a verse giving

the characteristics of a proper speaker (vatta) or instructor (desaka), and theother terms commented on in the commentarial body are part of this verse,too.0e verse reads as follows (Nidd-a I 8,8–9 ~ Vjb 2,3–4):

pa˙thatthavid’ asa

˙mhıro (Vjb pa

˙thattha-vidu ‘sa

˙mhıro) vatta suci amaccharo

catunna˙m (Vjb catukkam) apariccagı desak’ assa hitanvito (Vjb hitussuko) ti

“[If ] one knows text and meaning, [is] invincible, a [proper] speaker, pure,not selfish, has not given up the four (Vjb: the tetrad), follows (Vjb: is strivingfor) the welfare, one will be a [proper] instructor.”

Nidd-a quotes this verse at the original end of the commentary (nowobscured by later additions).26 What can easily be overlooked here is thatthe explications preceding the verse are in fact the commentary on that veryverse.

As a matter of fact, the commentary precedes the commented text inthe entire third section of the introduction of Nidd-a (Nidd-a I 6,3–9,5).0is is a very unusual sequence in Pali commentarial literature.27 To my

25) puna pi in Pali commentarial literature mostly seems to be used to add some furtherquotation or comment. In scholastic Sanskrit punar introduces “a slightly different idea or(more seriously) a modification or correction of what has been said before” (Tubb & Boose2007 §2.53.6).26) 0e end of the original commentary (Nidd-a I 8,7) is not the end of the commentaryas we have it now (ending in Nidd-a I 8,11). During the transmission of the text glosses ontwo words of this verse were inserted after the verse (Nidd-a I 8,10–11, see below, p. 17 f.).27) Regularly in Buddhist commentarial Pali literature commentary and commented textare handed down separately. 0e commentary contains only lemmata or pratıkas (see vonHinüber 2007: 103), followed by the comments.0is also holds true for the early Gandharı


knowledge, it is documented only in the Niddesa, which probably followedthe structure of earlier metrical texts like Itivuttaka, Udana, etc.28 In writinghis introduction to Nidd-a, Upasena possibly was inspired by the root text,but, unlike the commentarial section of the Niddesa, the commentary inthe introduction of Nidd-a does not open with the usual quote of the firstpada of the verse in question, and therefore is not easily recognizable as acommentary.

Another possible reason for this text sequence, if it was not simply takenover from some hitherto unknown source (such as an older commentaryon the Niddesa), might have been that Upasena wanted to underline theconnection between the alternative explanation of pa

˙tha and the preceding

one.It is in fact the text sequence which forms the main difference between

the two versions of this text. With one exception, Vjb has the sequence“commented text / commentary”. By contrast, the succession “commen-tary / commented text” would not have made sense in the introduction ofVjb because, instead of introducing this passage as an alternative explana-tion of pa

˙tha, Vajirabuddhi quotes the verse pa

˙thatthavidu ‘sa

˙mhıro … as

a reply to the question what sorts of proper speakers (katha˙mvidho vatta)

exist (see Appendix 2), and then adds a commentary on each word of theverse (except desak’ assa), in which he quotes and explains other verses andlists. Underneath these additions we still recognize the main structure.0eonly passage where Vjb shares the text sequence of Nidd-a is the canon-ical verse so eso sucitta piyo (Vjb 4,2–7 = Nidd-a I 8,11–16). 0is maybe an overlooked remnant or a deliberate retention. 0e latter could beexplained by the fact that this verse concludes the entire commentary onthe verse pa

˙thatthavidu…, and therewith the explanation of desaka, respec-

tively vatta. Both assumptions presuppose that Vjb is younger thanNidd-a,an aspect that will be discussed below.

commentary manuscripts (1st century ʙ to 2nd century ; information by courtesy ofStefan Baums, email 21.5.2009).0e earliest commentaries handed down to us are differentin this respect, because here commented text and commentary are handed down together,for instance Bhaddekaratta-suttantas, Majjhimanikaya (MNr. 131–134); Suttavibhanga onthe Patimokkha (Vin III–IV), cf. von Hinüber 2007: 107.28) In younger manuscripts and editions the root verse often is printed before the commen-tary section, thus leading to a double full quotation (one before, and one after the commen-tary). See for instance Nidd I 1,6–9; 3,20–21, etc. Such double full quotations seem ratherclearly secondary. Only the full quotation after the commentary body is syntactically linkedto the preceding. I thank Stefan Baums for these considerations (email, 21.5.2009).


In addition to the diverging text sequence, minor differences between bothversions can be observed. 0e texts deviate consistently with respect tosome readings, which possibly originated by their separate transmissions.Variants are to be observed in the usage of sandhi29 (1), or vocabulary30 (2),or different numbers of the same word31 (3), or different forms for the samegrammatical category32 (4).

Vjb Nidd-a Ipa˙thattha-vidu ‘sa

˙mhıro 2,3 pa

˙thattha-vid’asa

˙mhıro 8,8

pa˙thatthavidutta 4,4 pa

˙thatthavidatta 8,13

catukkam apariccagı 2,4 catunna˙m apariccagı 8,9

catukassapariccagı 3,21–22 catunna˙m apariccagı 8,2

catukkassa apariccagitta 4,3 catunna˙m apariccagitta 8,12

hitussuko 2,4; 4,1 hitanvito 8,9.11hitayossuko 4,1–2 hite anugato 8,11hitussukatta 4,4 hitanvitatta 8,13tatra 2,7 tattha 6,5generally: ity/ty adi, ity adısu generally: ti evamadi, ti-adısu oder iccadiniravaseso 2,10 anavaseso 6,9ñeyyattho 2,15; 2,19–20 ñayattho 6,14–15; 21–22pa˙thananurupo 2,16 na pa

˙thanurupo 6,15.26

apariccajitva 2,23 aparivajjetva 7,2vedanıyo 3,4 veditabbo 7,9navassa

˙m nissayo 2,16 navassayo 7,21

ahi-va˙la-gahakulo 2,17 va

˙lagahakulo 7,22

vibhajjavacanapara˙m 3,24 vibhajjavacana

˙m pada

˙m 8,4

asa˙thamayo sotassa 4,11 asa

˙thamayavikassa 9,3

amatamukho 4,10 amatabhimukho 9,3no ca

˙t˙thane 4,5 na ca

˙t˙thane 8,14

29) In case of pa˙thatthavidusa

˙mhıro (Vjb) respectively pa

˙thatthavidasa

˙mhıro (Nidd-a) the

vocalic sandhi characterised by the elision of one of the two vowels was applied, withthe difference that Vjb omitted the initial a° of the following word, whereas Nidd-aommitted the final vowel of the previous vidu. 0e emerging forms served as the basis forgenerating the abstract in °tta leading to pa

˙thatthavidutta in Vjb, and to pa

˙thatthavidatta in

Nidd-a.Vjb in general follows more closely the historical Sandhi (ity before vowels), whereas

Nidd-a uses the easier younger Sandhi of Middle-Indic (keeping both vowels or eliding oneof them).30) Vjb hitussuko (hita + ussuka) against Nidd-a hitanvito (hita + anv-ito from anu-i); Nidd-aan-avaseso against Vjb nir-avaseso.31) Nidd-a catunna

˙m against Vjb catukka

˙m.

32) Vjb vedanıyo against Nidd-a veditabbo.


Looking at these divergences we have to keep in mind that the text ofVjb presented here is mainly based on Burmese manuscripts.33 Sinhaleseor 0ai manuscripts of this text may yield additional readings hithertounknown. 0e critical apparatus of Nidd-a—comprising readings of oneedition each from Burma, Sri Lanka, and 0ailand, as well as of threeSinhalese manuscripts—indicates that some of the divergences are specificto regional traditions. For example, where Vjb reads ñeyyattho and Nidd-a ñayattho, the critical apparatus of Nidd-a offers ñeyyattho as the readingof a Burmese manuscript, or where Vjb has ato, Nidd-a has tasma withthe Burmese variant tato. 0erefore it could well be that on a broadermanuscript base the differences between both texts diminished.

In addition to these variants some consistent deviations can be observed:Commenting on the words of the list describing different types of pa

˙tha

(Vjb 2,6–7 = Nidd-a I 6,3–4), Vjb regularly starts with the catchword(pratıka), followed by nama, and by a canonical quotation ending in tiadi/ty adi. By contrast, Nidd-a never uses nama, and the quotations alwaysend in ti eva

˙m adi.

Commenting on the list describing the different types of attha (Vjb2,15–17 = Nidd-a I 6,14–16), both texts follow the same pattern—clearlydistinguished from the one used for the different types of pa

˙tha, namely:

word explanation ending with the pratıka, followed by a canonical quota-tion ending in ity adısu viya (Vjb) / iti adısu viya (Nidd-a).34

Having discussed the various meanings of attha, the commentary turnsto the words of the original verse (second verse in Vjb 3,10ff. = first verse inNidd-a I 7,13ff.) and it is from here onward that the two texts show increas-ing signs of bifurcation.0e respective section of Vjb regularly gives a wordanalysis followed by an explanation of meaning, mostly ending in ti attho.By contrast, the pratıkas are partly lost in Nidd-a (pa

˙thatthavidu, Nidd-a

I 7,13–14; vatta, before Nidd-a I 7,16; and hitanvıto in Nidd-a I 8,6–7),while word analysis and explanation of meaning merge into one (for exam-ple suci, Nidd-a I 7,17–19). Sometimes the first part, i.e., the word analysis,is given in a construction using instrumental (Nidd-a I 7,17–19) or ablative

33) 0e 0ai edition of Vjb heavily relies on the Burmese Cha˙t˙thasangayana edition, and

an older Burmese edition, probably identical with Be 1912.34) Vjb once has ty evam adısu viya (Vjb 2,19–21), once only ty adi (Vjb 3,2–4), bothprobably faults which came into being during its transmission.


(Nidd-a I 8,6–7). It serves as a cause for the then following statement,usually the original explanation of meaning. One probable cause of thiscorruption of the wording is the text sequence (commentary / commentedtext), which obscures the commentarial structure of this portion of theintroduction, and thus facilitated the loss of pratıkas and a subsequentmerging of word analysis and exegesis. A second cause seems to have beenthat the explanations of pa

˙tha (Nidd-a I 6,5–13) and attha (Nidd-a I 6,14–

7,12) were so elaborate that readers and copyists did not realize that withNidd-a I 7,13 Upasena returned to the commentary on the fourth word(asa

˙mhıra) of the first verse (second verse in Vjb); at least the increase of

deviations from that point onward suggests this assumption. Six cases willbe examined in detail:

(1) the definition of na pa˙thanurupo (Nidd-a I 6,24–27) /pa

˙thananu-

rupo (Vjb 2,22–23), and the transition to the explanation of savase-sattho (Nidd-a I 7,1–5, Vjb 2,23–3,2);

(2) the explanations of the pratıkas pa˙thatthavidu (Nidd-a I 7,13; Vjb

3,10) and asa˙mhıro (Nidd-a I 7,14–15; Vjb 3,10–12), the transition

from the explanation of asa˙mhıro to vatta (Nidd-a I 7,15–16; Vjb

3,11–12), and further to suci (Nidd-a I 7,17–19, Vjb 3,13–14);(3) the explanation of dussılo (Vjb 3,14–16 = Nidd-a I 7,19–20);(4) the explanation of hitussuko/hitanvito (Nidd-a I 8,10–11);(5) the two additional explanations of desak’ assa and hitanvıto (Nidd-a

I 8,10–11) in Nidd-a;(6) the two additional passages in Vjb without parallel in any other Pali

text, namely a verse inserted after Nidd-a I 7,12 (Vjb 3,7–9), anda second alternative explanation to catukka

˙m apariccagı (Vjb 3,22–

23).

(1)0e definition of na pa˙thanurupo and the transition to the explanation

of savasesattho:35

35) Parallel passages are in italics; canonical quotations are in bold; pratıkas are underlined.For the edition of Nidd-a several manuscripts and editions have been used. 0e variantsfrom the critical apparatus of the edition are: B = Burmese Manuscript; C, D, E = Sinhalesemanuscripts; H = Sinhalese edition printed in the Hewavitarne Bequest Series; S = editionprinted in Siamese. In addition variants of the Burmese Cha

˙t˙thasangayana edition have been

added by me, marked by Be.0e readings of Vjb are those of the Cha˙t˙thasangayana edition

(Be), an earlier Burmese edition from 1912 (Be 1912), and a Siamese edition (Se). Be and Secontain variants in the footnotes, which are also noticed.


Vjb Translation Nidd-a

Vjb 2,21–22:yathapa

˙tha

˙m bhasito

pa˙thanurupo (Vjb 2,15?)

“cakkhu (Be 1912 °u˙m),

bhikkhave, pura˙nakamman

(Be 1912 pora˙na˙m

kamman)” ti (S IV 132,4)Bhagavata vuttam.36

A [meaning (attho)] utteredaccording to the text is [ameaning] conforming to thetext: “!e eye, o monks, isan old kamma,” [this] wassaid by the Lord.

Nidd-a I 6,23–25:yatha pa

˙tha

˙m bhasito

pa˙thanurupo (Nidd-a

I 6,15) “cakkhu˙m

bhikkhave, pora˙na˙m

kamman (H, D pora˙na

°; Be pura˙nakamma

˙m)” ti

(S IV 132,4) Bhagavatavutta

˙m.

Vjb 2,22–23:“ato cakkhum api kamman”ti byañjanacchayaya attha

˙m

pa˙tibahayamanena vutto

pa˙thananurupo (Vjb

2,15–16).

A meaning uttered by onewho, clinging to the letter(lit. under the shadow ofthe letter): “0erefore theeye itself is a kamma”, wardsoff the [true] meaning, is [ameaning] not conforming tothe text.

Nidd-a I 6,25–26:tasma (B tato) “cakkhu(Be cakkhum) pi (Be

api) kamman” tibyañjanacchayaya attha

˙m

pa˙tibahayamanena (B

°bahanena) vutto atthona pa

˙thanurupo (Nidd-a

I 6,15).

Vjb: – [Such] a [meaning] is notallowed according to thetext, a rejection [of it] wasnot performed(?),37 it isseparated [from the text (?)].

Nidd-a I 6,26–27:so pa

˙thato ananuññato,

akatapa˙tikkhepo, viyutto:

Vjb: – And a [meaning] utteredwithout completing [it]38 innot including what shouldbe included and

Nidd-a I 7,1:yo (all MSS so) casangahetabbam piasangahetva

36) Vjb Be connects this sentence with the following.37) akatapa

˙tikkhepo is a hapax legomenon; for kata(p)pa

˙tikkhepo, “a rejection has been made

[by a monk]”, there are several references, albeit in a different context (referring to a monkwho is reckoned as invited, because he has rejected an invitation, Kkh 179,23 etc.). Fromthe point of view of content katapa

˙tikkhepo would fit better here, e.g. “[such a meaning]

is rejected [on account of the text]”; perhaps the akatapa˙tikkhepo (no variants are handed

down) is a wrong constitution for katapa˙tikkhepo?0e preceding word ends in -o, which can

lead to the elision of an initial a- of the following word. Some copyist could have restoredan a- that had never been there.38) 0e reading patisesa

˙m (Ee) is a printing error; patisesa does not exist in Pali. Parisesa

regularly is used in the negative aparisesa. It is to be assumed that the manuscripts of Nidd-a read aparivajjetvaparisesa

˙m akatva (wrongly separated into aparivajjetva parisesa

˙m in Ee,

correctly to be split into aparivajjetva aparisesa˙m), which means “[and a meaning uttered]

by not completing [it] in … not avoiding …”. Be obviously also read parisesa˙m but has the

verb katva, thus rendering the same meaning, only the other way round, i.e., “by making itincomplete”.



Vjb 2,23–3,2:vajjetabba

˙m kiñci

apariccajitvaparisesa

˙m katva vutto

savasesattho39 (Vjb 2,16)“cakkhuñ ca pa

˙ticca rupe ca

uppajjatı” ti (S II 72,19–21;etc.) ca, “sabbe tasantida˙n˙dassa, sabbe bhayanti

maccuno” ty (Dhp 129)adısu viya.

not avoiding what shouldbe avoided, is a meaningwith a rest as in the case of:Based on the eye and on theforms the eye-consciousnessarises, [and] All mentremble at punishment, allmen fear death.

Nidd-a I 7,1–5:parivajjetabbam pi vakiñci aparivajjetvaparisesa

˙m

(Ee aparivajjetva patisesa˙m)

akatva (Be katva) vuttosavasesattho (Nidd-aI 6,15) “cakkhuñ capa˙ticca rupe ca uppajjati

cakkhuviñña˙na

˙m” (S II

72,19–21; etc.) “sabbetasanti da

˙n˙dassa, sabbe

bhayanti maccuno” ti (Dhp129) adısu viya.

0e description of na pa˙thanurupo/pa

˙thananurupo is more elaborate in

Nidd-a, without, however, adding something substantial from the pointof view of content.0e additional words (pa

˙thato ananuññato, akatapa

˙tik-

khepo(??), viyutto) look like glosses which slipped into the text during theprocess of copying.0e word-analysis of savasesattho is also more elaboratein Nidd-a including sangahetabbam pi asangahetva which is missing inVjb, and writing parivajjetabba

˙m instead of vajjetabbam. It is difficult to

decide whether Nidd-a added the phrase sangahetabbam pi asangahetva, orwhether it was lost in Vjb.

(2) Explanations of the pratıkas pa˙thatthavidu and asa

˙mhıro, the transition

from the explanation of asa˙mhıro to vatta and eventually to suci:


(1) Vjb 3,5–7:sammutivasena (Be

1912 sammutiya)veditabbo (Be 1912 addva) neyyattho (Vjb 2,17)“cattaro ‘me, bhikkhave,valahakupama puggala” ty(A II 102,10–11; etc.) adısuviya.

A [meaning] to be knownby virtue of convention [is]a meaning to be inferred asin [the case] beginning with:!ese four individuals, omonks, resembling rainclouds (are to be found inthe world).

Nidd-a I 7,11–12:sammutivasena veditabboneyyattho (Nidd-a I 6,16)“cattaro ‘me, bhikkhave,valahakupama puggala” ti(A II 102,10–11; etc.) adısuviya.

39) Be 1912 add atthatapakkhepadabba˙m uddissa, savasesattho



(2) Vjb 3,7–9:aha ca:“Yo attho saddato ñeyyo,nıtattha

˙m iti ta

˙m vidu;

Atthass’ evabhisamaggı,neyyattho iti kathyate” ti.

Vjb: And one says:0e meaning which canbe known on accountof the sound, they knowas literal meaning;the perfect unanimityconcerning [one] meaningindeed is called a meaning tobe inferred.

Nidd-a I: –

(3) Vjb 3,10–11:eva

˙m pabhedagate

(Be 1912 pabheda°)pa˙thatthe vijanatıti

pa˙thatthavidu (Vjb 2,3).

na sa˙mhırate parapavadıhi

dıgharatta˙m titthavasenety

asa˙mhıro (Vjb 2,3).

Vjb: [One] who understandstext and meaning as they arediscriminated [is] one whoknows text and meaning.[One who] because of[his] dwelling for a longtime with [a person] thathelps over difficulties is notsubdued by those who speakdifferently, [is] an invincible.Nidd-a: One constantlyknowing (Be revealing)in this way text as wellas meaning becomesinvincible by those whospeak differently becauseof [his] dwelling for along time with [a person]that helps over difficulties(tittha).40,41

Nidd-a I 7,13–14evam ima

˙m (Be idha) pa

˙thañ

ca atthañ ca viditva (Be

vivaritva)˙thito asa

˙mhıro

(Nidd-a I 8,8) bhavatiparavadıhi dıgharatta

˙m

titthavasena (S ti˙t˙tha°; D °

vasena).

40) 0e dwelling at a fording place (tittha) or, better, the living together with a person thathelps over difficulties (tittha) is mentioned as one of several circumstances that advanceinsight, e.g. Mil (CSCD) 93.41) If we take the text to present the remnants of two originally separated explanations, itshould be translated as: “One constantly is one (

˙thito) who in this way knows (Be reveals)

text as well as meaning [= pa˙thatthavidu].

One becomes invincible by those who speak differently because of [his] dwelling for onelong time with [a person] that helps over difficulties (tittha) [= asa

˙mhiro].”0e iti asa

˙mhiro

missing in the end, in fact is there, but is understood as the beginning of the next sentence.



(4) Vjb 3,11–12:bhavanayagamadhigama-sampannatta vattu

˙m

sakkotıti vatta (Vjb 2,3).

Vjb: One who is capableof speaking becausehe is provided withthe understandingof the scriptures andmeditation [is] a speaker.Nidd-a: 0us on accountof being invincible42 heis able to speak as longas he is provided withthe understanding of thescripture.

Nidd-a I 7,15–16:43iti asa

˙mhıra-bhavena yava

agamadhigamasampada˙m (H

°pada; B sampannatta), tava(B omits) vattu

˙m (D vatta

˙m)

sakkoti.

(5) Vjb 3,12–13:sankhepavittharanayenahetudahara

˙nadıhi

avabodhayitu˙m samattho ty

attho.

0e meaning is:44 he iscapable of enlightening[others] according toreason, example etc. by theabbreviated and detailedmethod.

Nidd-a I 7,16–17:sankhepavittharanayenahetudahara

˙nadıhi

avabodhayitu˙m samattho.

(6) Vjb 3,13–14:socayaty attana

˙m pare

ceti suci (Vjb 2,3).dussılya-duddi

˙t˙thi-mala-

virahito ty attho.

Vjb: One whopurifies himself andothers [is] a purifier.0e meaning is: he is freefrom the dirt consisting inbad morals and bad views.Nidd-a: One of this type45is a purifier because he iscapable of purifying himselfand others on account of[his] being free from the dirtconsisting in bad morals andbad views.

Nidd-a I 7,17–19:eva

˙m vidite (Be °vidho)

attanañ ca parañ casodhetu

˙m samatthabhavena

dussılya-di˙t˙thi-mala-

virahitatta suci (Nidd-aI 8,8).

0e definition of neyyattho is similar in both texts (1). Vajirabuddhi adds averse—unparalleled in other Pali texts—after this definition, summarizingthe explanations of nıtattho and neyyattho and therewith concluding thecommentary on attha (2). In Nidd-a the pratıka pa

˙thatthavidu is lost (3),

and the word explanation (clearly reflected in ima˙m pa

˙thañ ca atthañ ca

42) 0is actually is the pratıka belonging to the preceding word.43) Nidd-a Ee starts a new sentence with iti. According to Vjb the iti asa

˙mhırawould indicate

the end of the previous quotation.44) ‘0e meaning is’ is omitted in Nidd-a.45) 0e reading eva

˙m vidite, given in Nidd-a without variant, does not make sense here.


viditva˙thito) is connected with the explanation of the word asa

˙mhıro, for

which even Vajirabuddhi does not separate the explanations of word andmeaning (perhaps already distorted in Nidd-a?). Due to this commingling,Nidd-a now lists two distinctive features of an asa

˙mhıra (normally only one

is given), namely, knowing text and meaning, and staying with a teacherfor a long time. Vjb clearly preserved both pratıkas and the respectiveexplanations, and there asa

˙mhıra is only connected with the factor of

spending a long time with a teacher (3). 0e next pratıka, vatta, againlost in Nidd-a, is represented in both texts with a word explanation. Butin Nidd-a this word explanation is connected with the pratıka of thepreceding explanation, namely with asa

˙mhıro.0erefore Nidd-a again gives

two reasons for being able to speak: one is invincible and is provided withthe understanding of the scripture (4). 0e explanation of the meaning ofvatta is identical in both texts, with the exception that only in Vjb it ends inti attho (5).0e definition of suci, again split into explanation of word andmeaning, is similar in both texts, but in Nidd-a both explanations merge(6). 0e passage of Nidd-a as a whole gives the impression of a heavilydistorted text.

(3) 0e explanation of dussılo, “one of bad morality”:

Vjb 3,14–16: Translation Nidd-a I 7,19–20:

dussılo (Vjb 3,14) hiattanam upahantyanadeyyavaco46 ca bhavatyapattaharacaro iva (Be 1912idha) niccaturo vejjo.

Vjb: For, one of badmorality hurts himself andhe becomes one whoseword loses ground like adoctor who not receivingnutrition and the right wayof behaviour [is] constantlyill.

dussılo (Nidd-a I 7,18)hi attana

˙m upahanati

(H upahanti), tenanadeyyavaco (Be adds ca)bhavati: asamatthaharacaro(H avatthahara°;Be sabyoharamano)dhenicchaturo (Be, D idhaniccaturo; B, S icaniccaturo)vaccho (B vajjo; C vaco; Dva vaccho; Be vejjo) va.

As for the explanation of dussılo, the sentence in Vjb is intelligible. 0isalso holds true for the first half of the sentence in Nidd-a, but the secondhalf is not, and the large number of variants indicates that it was no longer

46) Be, Be 1912 °anty ana°; Se misunderstood the ligature °nty° and read °antuna° whichfrom the point of content is wrong.


understood by the copyists either. Furthermore, the parallel structure ofthe immediately following sentence, and the similar structure of the nexttwo, can be taken as an indication that the text in Nidd-a became cor-rupted.

(4) Definition of hitussuko/hitanvito (Nidd-a I 8,6–7).Hitussuko/hitanvito is the last word of the commented verse. Vajirabud-

dhi gives the respective pratıka and an explanation of word and meaning.In Nidd-a the pratıka is lost and the two explanations are merged. Never-theless the original text is clearly recognizable.

Vjb 4,1–2: Nidd-a I 8,6–7:

hitussuko iti (Vjb 2,4) sotuna˙m hitayossuko,

tesam avabodhana˙m pati (Be 1912 om.)

patthetıty (Be n. 1 (ka) paccalletıti; Be 1912paccalletity; Se n. 2 paccalletı) attho.

tato eva sotuna˙m (H phalahetuna

˙m)

hite niyuttatta nesa˙m (H ten’ ev’ esa

˙m)

avabodhana˙m pati akilasu bhavatıti.

He strives for the welfare: He strives for thewelfare of the hearers. 0e meaning is: 0elord is longing for them to become aware.

Only on account of that, because of hisbeing determined for the welfare of thehearers, is the lord unfailing with respect tothem becoming aware.

Here Nidd-a again follows the pattern “commentary / commented text”,with the last commented word before the verse. Vjb clearly separates wordanalysis and meaning whereas Nidd-a combines both statements.

(5) 0e two additional explanations of desak’ assa and hitanvıto (Nidd-aI 8,10–11) in the Saddhammapajjotika.

Vjb: Nidd-a I 8,10–11:

– ettha desak’ assa ti (Nidd-a I 8,9) desakoassa, bhaveyya ti attho. hitanvito ti (Nidd-aI 8,9) hitena (Be hite) anugato, hitacitto.

0e explanation of the last two expressions of the verse, namely desak’ assa(Nidd-a I 8,10–11) and hitanvito (Nidd-a I 8,11), immediately followsthe verse in Nidd-a. 0ese are obviously later additions on account ofthe irregular text sequence. Nidd-a gives a word explanation, splittingdesakassa—transmitted in Oriental manuscripts and editions—into desako


assa, and replacing assa by bhaveyya as an explanation of meaning (Nidd-aI 8,10–11).47

0e commentary on the verse pa˙thatthavidu… ends with the character-

ization of a desaka according to the Anguttaranikaya (A IV 32,11–12) andNettipakara

˙na (Nett, CSCD, 164). 0us, the whole commentary on this

verse is understood as a characterization of a desaka.0is may well explainwhy in the original commentary the word desakassa is the only one that isleft uncommented by Vajirabuddhi and Upasena. However, some copyistsobviously perceived this as an omission, and added an explanation of theirown making.

0e second explanation of hitanvito also contains word analysis (hitenaanugato) and explanation of meaning. Here the loss of the pratıka in theoriginal commentary led some copyist to believe that hitanvıto had been leftuncommented, and this may have inspired him to attach an explanation atthe end of the verse. 0is may have been common practice in his day andage, but it clearly conflicts with the overall structure of the text.

(6) Coming to the passages of the introduction of Vjb that have no parallelin Nidd-a, the first is a verse that summarizes the definitions for nıtatthoand neyyattho (see above, p. 14ff.) thus concluding the explanation of attha.0is verse is more than the glosses in Nidd-a, which only contain synonymsfor words used in the text. It is a summary of the meaning of two veryimportant terms.

0e second passage is an alternative explanation of catunna˙m (Nidd-a),

respectively catukka˙m/catukkassa apariccagı (Vjb). Here the root text leaves

the intention entirely open. Vjb and Nidd-a explain the tetrad first as refer-ring to the four criteria, called the fourfold Vinaya (catubbidha vinaya),which are applied in decreasing downward order to check statements withregard to their validity, namely sutta “canonical text”, suttanuloma “con-formity with the canonical text”, acariyavada “meaning of an acariya”,and attano mati “own meaning”.48 0en, as a first alternative, both textsrelate the tetrad to the four modes of answering questions taught in theSuttapi

˙taka, namely: eka

˙msavacana “affirmative speech”, vibhajjavacana

“analysing speech”, pa˙tipucchana “inquiring” and

˙thapana “suspending”.49

47) 0is by the way is the only explanation after which Nidd-a has ti attho.48) 0ese four criteria are dealt with in detail in the Samantapasadika (Sp 230,31–231,15).49) 0ese four modes are explained at D III 229,30 f.; A I 197,21ff.; II 46,6ff.; Mil144,26ff. A good explanation is to be found in Sv (CSCD) II 157.


A second alternative, offered only in Vjb, refers the tetrad to the fol-lowing four prama

˙nas, “means of knowledge”, enumerated as paccakkha

“direct perception”, anumana “inference”, sadda “sound (utterance)” andatthapatti “implication”.0is list is unique in the Pali texts,50 and does notrepresent an accepted combination of prama

˙nas be it Buddhist or not.51

But anumana, atthapatti (Mp-˙t, CSCD, II 154) respectively anumana,

upamana, atthapatti (Sv-p˙t I 307,11–12; Ps-

˙t CSCD II 150; Sp-

˙t I 323,18–

19) are given as an open list (ending in adi) in the explanation of adi inanuma

˙nadipa

˙tikkhepo, “the rejection of inference etc.”520e earliest of these

commentaries is Dhammapala’s Sumangalavilasinıpora˙na˙tıka (date uncer-

tain). None of these commentaries is a philosophical text or deals withphilosophy in a significant way, which makes it unlikely that any specificsystem is intended here.53 Nonetheless, this tetrad of prama

˙nas seems to

have been familiar to Vajirabuddhi, similar to the four Vinayas and thefour types of questions.

Conclusions

0e above comparison of the two versions has revealed that both texts con-tain passages that have no parallel in the other. 0e portions exclusive toNidd-a probably were glosses consisting in mere word explanations thatslipped into the text during the process of copying (Nidd-a I 6,26–27; 7,1;8,10–11). Contrary to that, the two passages exclusive to Vjb are morecomplex glosses; they are in fact additions, namely a summary of nıtattha/

50) It is surprising that Vajirabuddhi chose this example, since the commentarial literatureoffers a number of groups of four more familiar, for example the four mahapadesas of theSutta and the four of the Vinaya, see Sv (CSCD) II 157.51) Buddhists mostly accept only the first two as prama

˙nas. As I learned, however, from

V. Eltschinger four prama˙nas are listed in the Chinese version of the Upayah

˙rdaya, namely

pratyak˙sa, anumana, aptopadesa (corresponding to sabda), and upamana (email 22.4.2009).

0e same list is given in the Spitzer manuscript, and, according to Eli Franco, these fourare accepted most probably by some Sarvastivadins (email 22.4.2009). 0us no Buddhisttradition seems to have accepted arthapatti as a prama

˙na. Among theHinduist philosophical

systems only the Purvamıma˙msa (Prabhakara, 7th century ) seems to accept arthapatti as

a prama˙na.

52) In the root text paccakkha is explained to have been at work.53) Perhaps the terms are used loosely in a judicial context. We have at least one case inVjb where atthapatti is applied in such a context. Vajirabuddhi here explains a fact to beproven by implication (atthapattisiddha, Vjb 274,29). It is difficult to decide whether amongthe ca. 250 references for atthapatti, atthapatti is used in the sense of arthapatti, becauseatthapatti in Oriental editions of Pali texts mostly stands for atthi apatti, “there is a sin”.


neyyattha in verse form (Vjb 3,7–9), and a supplementary alternative expla-nation of catukka

˙m apariccagı (Vjb 3,22–23). Considering the spectrum

covered in the introductory portion, Vjb is more comprehensive.0is sug-gests a later date of composition.

0e comparison also indicates that the textual tradition of Nidd-a bearssigns of corruption, one possible cause being the inverted sequence of“commentary / commented text”, which obliterates the text structure andthus facilitated the loss of pratıkas.0e pratıkas being lost, the copyist hadno other choice than to reassemble the discontextualized bits and pieces ofexplanations of words and meanings in a new structure. 0is seems to methe most likely course of events in the textual history of Nidd-a.

It is obvious that Nidd-a as we have it today cannot have been the sourceof Vjb. By merely disentangling the merged explanations of Nidd-a onecould hardly have arrived at the clearly differentiated statements of Vjb. If,however, we assume that Nidd-a was still intact when Vajirabuddhi wrotehis

˙tıka, it could well have been the source of the latter. It is impossible

to give a precise date for the distortions of Nidd-a, but, speaking in rela-tive terms, one would have to assume a rather early date for a supposedborrowing of Vjb from Nidd-a. In that case, Vajirabuddhi would havehad to rearrange the text sequence: “commentary / commented text” intothe sequence “commented text / commentary”. Judging from his compe-tent handling of diverse sources in his Vinaya

˙tıka, this should have been a

manageable task for him. One piece of evidence in favour of this hypothesisis the passage in which Vjb (4,2–7) has the same text sequence as Nidd-a(I 8,11–16). 0is, in my opinion, is to be interpreted as a remant of thetext sequence of the source from which Vajirabuddhi borrowed the text,overlooked or deliberately left unchanged by Vajirabuddhi when he rear-ranged the material.0is would then be a second indication that Vjb is theyounger text.

Nevertheless, we also have to take into account the possibility that Nidd-aborrowed from Vjb. In this case, Upasena would have had to change theyounger text sequence (commented text / commentary) into the older one(commentary / commented text), and, in addition, to omit the two pas-sages exclusive to Vjb. Both facts do not correspond with our observationof Upasena’s style of composition. A change of the text sequence wouldhave been a grave modification, and quite untypical for him. 0e sameholds true for the elisions. Furthermore, the text sequence we observe in


Upasena’s work is a continuation of the text sequence of the work he com-ments on, namely the Niddesa. If the sequence had been the other wayround, we would have a double change of the text sequence: commen-tary / commented text (Niddesa)—commented text / commentary (Vjb)—commentary / commented text (Niddesa-A

˙t˙thakatha). In addition, it would

be astonishing if Upasena, who quoted Vinaya matters by copying com-ments on Vinaya passages from commentaries on Sutta texts, had borrowedthis portion of his introduction directly from a Vinaya subcommentary.0erefore the notion that Upasena copied the third part of his Introduc-tion from Vjb is highly unlikely.

0ere exists, however, a third possibility, namely that both texts quotedfrom a common source. In that case, the fact that Nidd-a and Vjb share acommon portion would not give a clue as to their chronological succession.

Such a common source would have had to share the text sequence ofNidd-a, because this sequence is to be observed once in Vjb too and, thusmost probably is the original succession. 0is, in addition, would allowUpasena to follow the text sequence of his source without modification. Aprobable source in that case would be an older—unattested—commentaryon the Niddesa, in Pali, Sinhalese or some other vernacular. If it hadbeen a Pali text, however, one would expect more Pali commentaries todiscuss one or the other passage or term or to quote one or the otherof the verses. But in fact no other Pali text quotes words or sentencesfrom these descriptions. If, on the other hand, the original source hadbeen written in Sinhalese or another vernacular, it would have had to betranslated. Despite all differences between the versions of Vjb and Nidd-a, the agreement of our two texts is too close to assume two separatetranslations. 0erefore the idea of a common source in some vernacularcan be discounted.

Although we cannot absolutely exclude the possibility of a common Palisource, I consider it more probable that Vjb took over the text fromNidd-a.Vajirabuddhi was skilled in quoting and modifying his sources, and there-fore able to change the text sequence, an undertaking not necessarily com-patible with Upasena’s method of writing, as it is known to us. 0e twoadditional passages of Vjb also speak in favor of this chronological suc-cession, and, again, would leave Upasena with his usual working method.0is, however, leaves us with Upasena as the creator of the third portion ofthe Gantharambhakatha. Since he seems not to have been a very creative


writer, it might well be that Upasena translated this passage from a Sinhalesesource, perhaps an older commentary on the Niddesa. However that maybe, if the suggested relation between Nidd-a and Vjb is correct, it wouldgive us a terminus post quem for the origin of Vjb, and thus confine thetime frame in which Vjb originated from the usual “after the 7th and beforethe 12th centuries” to “after the 9th and before the 12th centuries”. Tak-ing into account the consideration that the borrowing from Nidd-a shouldhave taken place rather earlier than later, the 9th/10th centuries seemthe most probable dates.54

Appendix 1:Parallels of the Saddhammapajjotika with other texts55

Nidd-a other Pali sources

I 1,16 (Vs. 5cd)I 2,3–6 (Vs. 9)I 2,7–10 (Vs. 10)

Pa˙tis-a 2,3–4 (Vs. 6cd)

Pa˙tis-a 2,13–16 (Vs. 9)

Pa˙tis-a 2,9–12 (Vs. 8)

I 2,13–16 (Vs. 12)I 2,17–18

Pa˙tis-a 2,17–20 (Vs. 10)

Pa˙tis-a 2,21–22

I 9,9–10,24 Pa˙tis-a 8,20–10,6

I 11,9–15 Pj II 512,25–31 = Nett-a (CSCD) 43

I 22,5–24,3 As 140,11–141,33

I 23,28–24,3 Pa˙tis-a 521,26–31

I 38,4–42,17 As 362,27–367,6

I 57,19–60,15 As 124,32–127,14

I 115,12–119,5 Ps (CSCD) I 198–202 = Spk II 145–148

I 115,12–117,17I 117,18–118,1

As 97,12–99,19As 99,26–100,9

I 121,28–122,26 Pa˙tis-a 15,25–16,29

54) Although the decisive terminus ante quem for Vjb is the date of the origination of Sp-˙t

(12th century ), the fact that Vajirabuddhi deals in more detail with nuns’ rules than theyounger

˙tıkas makes it probable that the Vjb was written at a time when the community of

Buddhist nuns still existed. In Sri Lanka the end of the nuns’ community dates at the latestto the 11th century, when the ordination line of Buddhist monks and therewith Buddhistnuns died.0erefore it is probable that the Vjb originated earlier than the 11th century .0ese questions will be dealt with in more detail in another context.55) 0ese parallels are chance finds, and not the result of a systematic search for parallels.


Nidd-a other Pali sources

I 134,16–144,24 Pa˙tis-a 184,14–193,22

I 145,20–147,21 Pa˙tis-a 505,9–506,31

I 147,22–148,6 As 123,28–124,9

I 177,33–186,29 Pa˙tis-a 207,5–215,38 vgl. auch Sv I 60ff.

I 186,30–187,16 Dhp-a (CSCD) III 396

I 187,17–25 Pj II 430,11–20

I 300,10–302,31 Pa˙tis-a 648,11–650,16

I 432,32–33 As 377,20–22 ~ Pa˙tis-a 232,11–12

Appendix 2:!e second portion of the Vajirabuddhi

˙tıka’s introduction and the third

of the Saddhammapajjotika’sVjb Nidd-a

Vjb 1,17–18 (first verse):Sañña nimitta

˙m katta ca,

parima˙na

˙m payojana

˙m;

Sabbagamassa pubbeva, vattabba˙m

vattum icchata ti.

-

Vjb 1,19–2,2 (commentary on first verse):vacanato56 Samantapasadiketi sañña (Vjb1,17).dıpantare bhikkhujanassa attha

˙m

nabhisambhu˙natıti (Sp 2,9–10) nimitta

˙m

(Vjb 1,17).Buddhaghoso ti garuhi gahitanamadhey-yena ‘ti (Sp 1416,12–13) katta (Vjb 1,17).samadhika-sattavısati-sahassa-mattenatassa ganthena ‘ti (Sp 1414,24) parima

˙na

˙m

(Vjb 1,17).cira

˙t˙thitattha

˙m dhammassa ‘ti (Sp

1415,25) payojana˙m (Vjb 1,17).

tatraha “vattabba˙m vattum icchata

ti (Vjb 1,18) ya˙m vutta

˙m, tattha57

katha˙mvidho vatta”ti? uccate:

56) Be n. 1 (ka); Be 1912; Se n. 1 (ma) pavutta sabbatantana˙m, paccha attanuva

˙n˙nayetyadi-

vacanena57) For ya

˙m vutta

˙m, tattha: Be n. 1 (ka); Be 1912 paccha attha anuva

˙n˙nayety (v.l. attanu°)

utta˙m; Se n. 2 (po): hi vutta

˙m.


Vjb Nidd-a

Vjb 2,3–4 (second verse):Pa˙thattha-vidu-sa

˙mhıro (vidu

‘s°), vatta suci amaccharo;Catukkam apariccagı, desakassa58hitussuko ti.

parallel in Nidd-a I 8,8–9, see below

Vjb 2,5–6 (commentary on second verse):tatra pa

˙thıyate ti pa

˙tho (Vjb 2,3). so hi

anekappakaro: atthanurupo atthananurupoceti. katha

˙m?

Vjb 2,6–7 (first list):sandhayabhasito, byañjanabhasito,savasesapa

˙tho, niravasesapa

˙tho, nıto, neyyo

ti.

Nidd-a I 6,3–4:puna pi: sandhayabhasito, vyañjanabhasito,savasesapa

˙tho, anavasesapa

˙tho, nıto, neyyo ti

chabbidho pa˙tho59 (Nidd-a I 8,8).

Vjb 2,7–8 (commentary on first list):tatra anekatthavatta sandhayabhasito (Vjb2,6) nama “matara

˙m pitara

˙m hantva” ti

(Dhp vs. 294) adi.

Nidd-a I 6,5–6:tattha anekatthavatta60 sandhayabhasito(Nidd-a I 6,3) “matara

˙m pitara

˙m hantva,

rajano dve ca khattiye” ti (Dhp vs. 294)evam61 adi.

Vjb 2,9 (commentary on first list):ekatthavatta byañjanabhasito (Vjb 2,6)nama “manopubbangama dhamma” ty(Dhp vss. 1–2) adi.

Nidd-a I 6,6–7:ekatthavatta62 byañjanabhasito63(Nidd-a I 6,3) “manopubbangamadhamma” ti (Dhp vss. 1–2) evam adi.

Vjb 2,9–10 (commentary on first list):savaseso (Vjb 2,7) nama “sabba

˙m,

bhikkhave, adittam” ity adi (S IV19,25–26; etc.).

Nidd-a I 6,8:savaseso (Nidd-a I 6,3) “sabba

˙m,

bhikkhave, adittan” ti (S IV 19,25–26;etc.) evam adi.

Vjb 2,10–12 (commentary on first list):viparıto niravaseso (Vjb 2,7) nama“sabbe dhamma sabbakarena BuddhassaBhagavato ña

˙namukhe apatha

˙m

agacchantı” ty (Pa˙tis II 194,28–30;

Nidd I 178,13–14, etc.) adi

Nidd-a I 6,8–10:viparıto anavaseso (Nidd-a I 6,4)“sabbe dhamma sabbakarena Bud-dhassa Bhagavato ña

˙namukhe apatha

˙m

agacchantı” ti (Pa˙tis II 194,28–30;

Nidd I 178,13–14, etc.) evam adi.

58) Be 1912 desako ca59) H adds ti.60) H °thamatto; C °vata.61) Nidd-a eam (printing error)62) H °thamatto; C °vata.63) Here Ee follows the reading of Burmese manuscripts.


Vjb Nidd-a

Vjb 2,12–13 (commentary on first list):yatha vacana

˙m, tatha avagantabbo nıto

(Vjb 2,7) nama “anicca˙m dukkham

anatta” ty (S III 25,10; IV 6,21; etc.) adi.

Nidd-a I 6,10–12:yatha vacana

˙m, tatha avagantabbo

nıto (Nidd-a I 6,4) “anicca˙m dukkha

˙m

anatta” ti (S III 25,10; IV 6,21; etc.) evamadi.

Vjb 2,13–14 (commentary on first list):yuttiya anussaritabbo neyyo (Vjb 2,7)nama “ekapuggalo, bhikkhave” ty adi (A I22,2–3; 33,2; etc.).

Nidd-a I 6,12–13:yuttiya anussaritabbo neyyo (Nidd-aI 6,4) “ekapuggalo bhikkhave” ti (A I22,2–3; 33,2; etc.) evam adi.

Vjb 2,15–17 (second list):attho (Vjb 2,3) pi anekappakaro:pa˙thattho, sabhavattho, ñeyyattho,

pa˙thanurupo, pa

˙thananurupo, savasesattho,

niravasesattho, nıtattho, neyyattho ty adi.

Nidd-a I 6,14–16:attho (Nidd-a I 8,8) pana anekappakaro:pa˙thattho, sabhavattho, ñayattho,64

pa˙thanurupo, na pa

˙thanurupo, savasesattho,

niravasesattho, nıtattho, neyyattho ity adi.65

Vjb 2,17–18 (commentary on second list):tattha yo ta

˙m ta

˙m saññapanattham

uccarıyate66 pa˙tho, sa pa

˙thattho (Vjb 2,15)

“sattha˙m sabyañjanam” ity (Vin I 21,5–6;

35,31; D I 150,19; 250,6; etc.) adısu viya.

Nidd-a I 6,17–18:tattha yo appassatthassa (Ee apassa‘tthassa) saññapanattham67 uccarıyatepa˙tho,68 so69 pa

˙thattho (Nidd-a I 6,14)

“sattha˙m savyañjanan” ti (Vin I 21,5–6;

35,31; D I 150,19; 250,6; etc.) adısu viya.

Vjb 2,18–19 (commentary on second list):ruparupadhammana

˙m lakkha

˙narasadi

sabhavattho (Vjb 2,15) “ sammadi˙t˙thi

˙m

bhavetı” ty (S V 3,29; etc.) adısu viya.

Nidd-a I 6,19–20:ruparupadhammana

˙m lakkha

˙narasadi

sabhavattho (Nidd-a I 6,14)“ sammadi

˙t˙thi

˙m bhavetı” ti (S V

3,29; etc.) adısu viya.

Vjb 2,19–21 (commentary on second list):yo ñayamano70 hitaya bhavati, sa ñatum71

arahatta ñeyyattho (Vjb 2,15): “atthavadıdhammavadı” ty (M I 180,3; etc.) evamadısu viya.

Nidd-a I 6,21–22:yo ñayamano hitaya sa

˙mvattati, so

ñatu˙m72 arahatıti ñayattho (Nidd-a

I 6,14–15) “atthavadı dhammavadı” ti(M I 180,3; etc.) adısu viya.

64) B neyyattho65) Be iccadi66) Be 1912 uccariyate67) Be ñapanattha

˙m

68) B omits69) H, D, C sa70) Be 1912 saññayamano71) Be 1912 saññatu

˙m; Se so ñatum

72) H, S, D, C saññapetu˙m


Vjb Nidd-a

Vjb 2,21–22 (commentary on second list):yathapa

˙tha

˙m bhasito pa

˙thanurupo

(Vjb 2,15–16) “cakkhu,73 bhikkhave,pura

˙nakamman74” ti (S IV 132,4)

Bhagavata vuttam.75

Nidd-a I 6,23–25:yatha pa

˙tha

˙m76 bhasito77 pa

˙thanurupo

(Nidd-a I 6,15) “cakkhu˙m bhikkhave,

pora˙na˙m kamman78” ti (S IV 132,4)

Bhagavata vutta˙m.

Vjb 2,22–23 (commentary on second list):ato “cakkhum api79 kamman”ti80 byañjanacchayaya attha

˙m

pa˙tibahayamanena vutto pa

˙thananurupo

(Vjb 2,15–16).

Nidd-a I 6,25–26:tasma81 “cakkhu82 pi83 kam-man” ti byañjanacchayaya attha

˙m

pa˙tibahayamanena84 vutto attho na

pa˙thanurupo (Nidd-a I 6,15).

Vjb: – Nidd-a I 6,26–27:so pa

˙thato85 ananuññato, akatapa

˙tikkhepo,

viyutto.

Vjb: – Nidd-a I 7,1:yo86 ca sangahetabbam pi asangahetva

Vjb 2,23–3,2 (commentary on secondlist):vajjetabba

˙m kiñci apariccajitva parisesa

˙m

katva vutto savasesattho87 (Vjb 2,16)“cakkhuñ ca pa

˙ticca rupe ca uppajjatı” ti

(S II 72,19–21; etc.) ca, “sabbe tasantida˙n˙dassa, sabbe bhayanti maccuno” ty

(Dhp 129) adısu viya.

Nidd-a I 7,1–5:parivajjetabbam pi va kiñci aparivajjetva-parisesa

˙m88 akatva89 vutto savasesattho

(Nidd-a I 6,15) “cakkhuñ ca pa˙ticca rupe

ca uppajjati cakkhuviñña˙na

˙m” (S II

72,19–21; etc.) “sabbe tasanti da˙n˙dassa,

sabbe bhayanti maccuno” ti (Dhp 129)adısu viya.

73) Be 1912 cakkhu˙m

74) Be 1912 pora˙na

˙m kamman

75) Vjb Be connects this sentence with the following.76) S, C, D °

˙tha

77) S, C kappito78) H, D pora

˙na°; Be pura

˙nakamma

˙m

79) Be 1912 pi80) 0is statement would be wrong, since the eye is not navakamma.81) B tato82) Be cakkhum83) Be api84) B °bahanena85) B adds anurupo so pa

˙tho

86) All MSS so.87) Be 1912 add atthatapakkhepadabba

˙m uddissa, savasesattho

88) Ee aparivajjetva patisesa˙m (patisesa

˙m, printing error?)

89) Be katva, see above n. 38.


Vjb Nidd-a

Vjb 3,2–4 (commentary on second list):viparıto niravasesattho (Vjb 2,16)“sandhavita

˙m sa

˙msarita

˙m mamañ c’

eva tumhakañ ca (A II 1,11–12; etc.).Tatra, bhikkhave, ko manta ko saddhata… pe … aññatra di

˙t˙thapadehı” ty (A IV

103,21–23) adi.90

Nidd-a I 7,6–8:viparıto niravasesattho (Nidd-a I 6,15–16)“sandhavita

˙m sa

˙msarita

˙m mamañ c’ eva

tumhakañ ca (A II 1,11–12; etc.). Tatra,bhikkhave, ko manta ko sandhata91 …pe … aññatra di

˙t˙thapadehı?” ti (A IV

103,21–23) adısu viya.

Vjb 3,4–5 (commentary on second list):saddavasen’ eva92 vedanıyo nıtattho(Vjb 2,16) “rupa sadda rasa gandha,93pho

˙t˙thabba ca manorama” ‘ty (S I

111,30–31; Vin I 21,19; etc.) adısu viya.

Nidd-a I 7,9–10:saddavasen’ eva94 ved itabbo nıtattho(Nidd-a I 6,16) “rupa sadda rasa gandha,pho

˙t˙thabba ca manorama” ti (S I

111,30–31; Vin I 21,19; etc.) adısu viya.

Vjb 3,5–7 (commentary on second list):sammutivasena95 veditabbo96 neyyattho(Vjb 2,17) “cattaro ‘me, bhikkhave,valahakupama puggala” ty (A II102,10–11; etc.) adısu viya.

Nidd-a I 7,11–12:sammutivasena veditabbo neyyattho(Nidd-a I 6,16) “cattaro ‘me, bhikkhave,valahakupama puggala” ti (A II102,10–11; etc.) adısu viya.

Vjb 3,7–9 (commentary on sec-ond verse; a third verse summa-rizes the two last types of attha)aha ca:“Yo attho saddato ñeyyo,

nıtattha˙m iti ta

˙m vidu;

Atthass’ evabhisamaggı,neyyattho iti kathyate” ti.

Nidd-a I: –

Vjb 3,10 (commentary on second verse):eva

˙m pabhedagate97 pa

˙thatthe vijanatıti

pa˙thatthavidu (Vjb 2,3).

Nidd-a I 7,13evam ima

˙m98 pa

˙thañ ca atthañ ca

viditva99˙thito

90) viya should be added in analogy to the other passages.91) Be saddhata92) Be saddavasena93) Be 1912 gandha rasa94) B paramatthava°95) Be 1912 sammutiya96) Be 1912 add va97) Be 1912 pabheda°98) Be idha99) Be vivaritva


Vjb Nidd-a

Vjb 3,10–11 (commentary on secondverse):na sa

˙mhırate parapavadıhi dıgharatta

˙m

titthavasenety asa˙mhıro (Vjb 2,3).

Nidd-a I 7,13–15:

asa˙mhıro (Nidd-a I 8,8) bhavati paravadıhi

dıgharatta˙m titthavasena.100, 101iti asa

˙mhıra-

Vjb 3,11–12 (commentary on secondverse):bhavanayagamadhigama-sampannattavattu

˙m sakkotıti vatta (Vjb 2,3).

Nidd-a I 7,15–16:

bhavena102 yava agamadhigamasampa-da

˙m,103 tava104 vattu

˙m105 sakkoti.

Vjb 3,12–13 (commentary on secondverse):sankhepavittharanayena hetudahara

˙nadıhi

avabodhayitu˙m samattho ty attho.

Nidd-a I 7,16–17:

sankhepavittharanayena hetudahara˙nadıhi

avabodhayitu˙m samattho.

Vjb 3,13–14 (commentary on secondverse):socayaty attana

˙m pare ceti suci (Vjb 2,3).

dussılya-duddi˙t˙thi-mala-virahito ty attho.

Nidd-a I 7,17–19:eva

˙m vidite106 attanañ ca parañ

ca sodhetu˙m samatthabhavena

dussılya-di˙t˙thi-mala-virahitatta107

suci108 (Nidd-a I 8,8).

Vjb 3,14–16:dussılo (Vjb 3,14) hi attanam upa-hanty anadeyyavaco109 ca bhavatyapattaharacaro iva110 niccaturo vejjo.

Nidd-a I 7,19–20:dussılo (Nidd-a I 7,18) hi attana

˙m

upahanati,111 tena nadeyyavaco112 bhavati:asamatthaharacaro113 dhenicchaturo114vaccho115 va.

100) S ti˙t˙tha°; D °vasena

101) Nidd-a Ee starts a new sentence with iti. According to Vjb it would indicate the end ofthe previous quotation.102) C °ravasena; possibly bhavena yava goes back to bhavanaya (Vjb)?103) H °pada; B sampannatta (= Vjb).104) B omits (= Vjb).105) D vatta

˙m

106) Be °vidho107) H °virahita108) H tesu pi109) Be, Be 1912 °anty ana°; Se misunderstood the ligature °nty° and read °antuna° whichfrom the point of content is wrong; °vaco (reading of Be = Se n. 4 [cha]); °vakyo (Be n. 7[ka]; Be 1912; Se n. 4 [ma]); °vacano (Be n. 7 [ka], Se).110) Be 1912 idha111) H upahanti112) Be n. 7: vakyo (ka), vacano (ka); Be adds ca113) H avatthahara°; Be sabyoharamano114) Be, D idha niccaturo; B, S iva niccaturo115) B vajjo; C vaco; D va vaccho; Be vejjo


Vjb Nidd-a

Vjb 3,16–17:duddi

˙t˙thi (Vjb 3,14) para

˙m upa-

hanti, navassa˙m nissayo ca bhavaty

ahiva˙lagahakulo116 iva kamalasa

˙n˙do.

Nidd-a I 7,21–22:duddi

˙t˙thi (Nidd-a I 7,18) para

˙m117

upahanati,118 navassayo119 ca120 bhavativa˙lagahakulo121 iva kamalasa

˙n˙do.

Vjb 3,17–18:ubhayavipanno sabbathapy anupasanıyobhavati guthagatam iva chavalata

˙m

122-guthagato viya ca ka˙nhasappo.-122

Nidd-a I 7,22–24:ubhayavipanno pana sabbathapianupasanıyo bhavati: guthagatamiva chava

˙lata

˙m123; guthagato viya ca

ka˙nhasappo.

Vjb 3,19–20:ubhayasampanno pana124 suci sabbathapyupasanıyo 125-sevitabbo ca viññuhi,-125nirupaddavo iva ratanakaro.

Nidd-a I 7,24–26:ubhayasampanno pana suci126 sabbathapiupasanıyo sevitabbo ca viññuhi, nirupad-davo iva ratanakaro.

Vjb 3,20–21 (commentary on secondverse):nassa maccharo ty amaccharo (Vjb 2,3),127-pahınacariyamu

˙t˙thıty-127 attho.

Nidd-a I 7,26–8,1:

eva˙mbhuto eva128 amaccharo129

(Nidd-a I 8,8) pahınacariyamu˙t˙thı.130

Vjb 3,21–22 (commentary on secondverse):sutta-suttanulomacariyavada-attanomati-sankhatassa catukkassapariccagı (Vjb 2,3?),tadatthass’ eva byakhyate131ty attho.

Nidd-a I 8,1–3:

sutta-suttanuloma-acariyavada-attanomati-sankhat anañ ca catunna

˙m apariccagı

(Nidd-a I 8,9), tesa˙m132 vasena vyakhyato.

116) Be 1912 °ba˙lha°

117) H pan’attana˙m; D pana

118) H upahanti119) H na

˙t˙thassayo.

120) H pi121) H, S, D, C °guha°122) Be 1912 omits.123) Be°lata

˙m

124) Be 1912 tu125) Be 1912 omits.126) H, Be omit127) So Be 1912; Be ahınacariyamu

˙t˙thıty, Se ahınacariyamu

˙t˙thity

128) Be eva˙m

129) H apaccaro130) H panıyaca°; Be ahınacariyamu

˙t˙thi

131) So Be = Se n. 1 (cha); Be n. 8 (ka); Se byakhato na viparıtav adıty attho.132) B tabba


Vjb Nidd-a

Vjb 3,22–23 (commentaryon second verse, alternativeexplanation for catukkapariccagi):atha va paccakkhanumana-saddatthapattippabhedassapama

˙nacatukkassapariccagı

(Vjb 2,4).

Nidd-a:

Vjb 3,24–25 (commentary on secondverse, second alternative explanationfourth verse for catukkapariccagi):“Eka

˙msavacana

˙m eka

˙m,

vibhajjavacanapara˙m;

Tatiya˙m pa

˙tipuccheyya,133 catuttha

˙m pana

˙thapaye” ti (A II 46,11–12)

Nidd-a I 8,4–5:

“Eka˙msavacana

˙m eka

˙m,

vibhajjavacana˙m para

˙m134;

Tatiya˙m pa

˙tipuccheyya, catuttha

˙m

pana˙thapaye” ti (A II 46,11–12).

Vjb 4,1:eva

˙m vuttacatukkassa va apariccagı

(Vjb 2,4)

Nidd-a I 8,6:etesa

˙m va apariccagı.

Vjb 4,1–2 (commentary on second verse)hitussuko iti (Vjb 2,4) sotuna

˙m

hitayossuko, tesam avabodhana˙m pati135

patthetıty136 attho.

Nidd-a I 8,6–7:tato eva sotuna

˙m137 hite niyuttatta

nesa˙m138 avabodhana

˙m pati akilasu

bhavatıti.

parallel above Vjb 2,3–4 Nidd-a I 8,7–9 (second verse):aha c’ ettha:“Pa

˙thatthavid’ asa

˙mhıro, vatta suci amac-

charo;Catunna

˙m apariccagı, desak’ assa

hitanvito” ti.

Vjb: – Nidd-a I 8,10–11 (com-mentary on second verse):ettha desak’ assa ‘ti (Nidd-a I 8,9)desako assa, bhaveyya ti attho.hitanvito ti (Nidd-a I 8,9) hitena139anugato, hitacitto.

133) Be 1912 °eyya˙m

134) Be pada˙m

135) Be 1912 omits.136) Be n. 1 (ka) paccalletıti; Be 1912 paccalletity; Se n. 2 paccalletı.137) H phalahetuna

˙m

138) H ten’ ev’ esa˙m

139) Be hite


Vjb Nidd-a

Vjb 4,2–3 (commentary on fifth verse):so eso sucitta piyo (Vjb 4).

Nidd-a I 8,11–12:so eva

˙m140 sucitta141 piyo142 (Nidd-a

I 8,15),

Vjb 4,3 (commentary on fifth verse):catukkassa apariccagitta garu (Vjb 4).

Nidd-a I 8,12:catunna

˙m apariccagitta garu (Nidd-a

I 8,15)

Vjb 4,3 (commentary on fifth verse):asa

˙mhıratta143 bhavanıyo (Vjb 4).

Nidd-a I 8,12–13:asa

˙mhıratta144 bhavanıyo (Nidd-a

I 8,15)

Vjb 4,4 (commentary on fifth verse):desakatta vatta145 (Vjb 4).

Nidd-a I: –

Vjb 4,4 (commentary on fifth verse):hitussukatta vacanakkhamo (Vjb 4,)

Nidd-a I 8,13:hitanvitatta145 vacanakkhamo (Nidd-aI 8,15)

Vjb 4,4–5 (commentary on fifth verse):pa˙thatthavidutta gambhırakatha

˙m katta

(Vjb 4).

Nidd-a I 8,13–14:pa˙thatthavidatta gambhırakatha

˙m

katta (Nidd-a I 8,16)

Vjb 4,5 (commentary on fifth verse):amaccharatta no ca

˙t˙t hane niyojako ti (Vjb

4).

Nidd-a I 8,14:amaccharitta145

˙thane niyojako iti146

(Nidd-a I 8,16).

Vjb 4,6–7 (fifth verse):“Piyo149 garu bhavanıyo,

vatta ca vacanakkhamo150;Gambhırañ ca katha

˙m katta, no

ca˙t˙thane151 niyojako152” iti (A IV

32,11–12; Nett, CSCD, 164)

Nidd-a I 8,15–16:“Piyo garu bhavanıyo, vatta ca

vacanakkhamo;Gambhırañ ca katha

˙m katta, no c’

a˙t˙thane niyojako” ti. (A IV 32,11–12;

Nett, CSCD, 164).

Vjb 4,8:abhihito desako.

Nidd-a I 8,17:abhihito desako.

140) Be eso141) H sucitto142) H sisso143) Be 1912 adds hi144) H °hırata145) Be 1912 places the words desakatta vatta after hitussukatta vacanakkamo146) Be hitanvitatta147) Be amaccharatta na ca

˙t

148) In Nidd-a understood as introduction to the following verse.149) A IV 32,11 adds ca150) Be 1912 vacanakkamo151) Be 1912 ca

˙thane

152) A IV 32,12 niyojaye (v.l. °jako, °jito)


Vjb Nidd-a

Vjb 4,9:sota idani153 abhidhıyate154

Nidd-a I 8,17:sota155 idani156 abhidhıyate157”.

Vjb 4,10–11 (sixth verse):dhammacariyagaru saddha-paññadigu

˙nama

˙n˙dito. asa

˙thamayo

sotassa, sumedho amatamukho.

Parallel below, in Nidd-a I 9,3–4:

Vjb 4,12 (commentary on sixth verse):tattha dhammagarutta katha

˙m na

paribhavati,

Nidd-a I 8,17–18:sa tu158 dhammagarutta katha

˙m na

paribhavati,

Vjb 4,12–13 (commentary on sixth verse):acariyagarutta kathika

˙m 159-na

paribhavati,-159

Nidd-a I 8,18–19:acariyagarutta160 kathika

˙m na parib-

havati,161

Vjb 4,13 (commentary on sixth verse):saddha-paññadigu

˙napa

˙tima

˙n˙ditatta162

attana˙m na paribhavati,

Nidd-a I 8,19–20:saddha-paññadigu

˙napa

˙tima

˙n˙ditatta

attana˙m na paribhavati,

Vjb 4,13–14 (commentary on sixth verse):asa˙thamayatta163 amatabhimukhatta164 ca

avikkhittacitto165 bhavati,166

Nidd-a I 8,20–21:asa˙thamayavitta167 amatabhimukhatta ca

avikkhittacitto bhavati,

Vjb 4,14–15 (commentary on sixth verse):sumedhatta yoniso manasikarotıty attho.

Nidd-a I 8,21:sumedhatta yoniso manasikarotıti.

153) Be 1912 va dani154) Be n. 3 (ka); Se n. 4 (ma) vuccate155) S so tava156) Be va dani, H padani157) H anidhiyyako158) Be tattha; D vattu; B satthu, H, S, C catu; the reading of Be is better, because itintroduces the commentary to the verse Nidd-a I 9,3–4. 0e large number of variantsindicates that on account of the text sequence this has not been realized.159) Be 1912 omits.160) C apariccaga°161) D, B omit162) Be 1912 °gu

˙nama

˙n˙dita°

163) Be 1912 asatha°164) Be 1912 °tamukhatta165) Be 1912 vikkhitta°166) Be 1912 na bhavati167) B °mayacittatta; C °mayavittatta


Vjb Nidd-a

Vjb 4,15–20vuttañ h’ eta

˙m:168

“pañcahi, bhikkhave, dhammehisamannagato su

˙nanto saddhamma

˙m

bhabbo niyama˙m okkamitu

˙m

kusalesu dhammesu sammatta˙m.

katamehi pañcahi?na katha

˙m paribhoti, na kathika

˙m

paribhoti, na attana˙m paribhoti,

avikkhittacitto dhamma˙m su

˙nati ekag-

gacitto yoniso ca manasi karotı” ti (A III174,20–175,5).

Nidd-a I 8,22–9,1:vuttañ h’ eta

˙m:

“pañcahi, bhikkhave, dhammehisamannagato su

˙nanto saddhamma

˙m

bhabbo niyama˙m okkamitu

˙m

kusalesu dhammesu sammatta˙m.

katamehi pañcahi?na katha

˙m paribhoti, na kathika

˙m

paribhoti, na attana˙m paribhoti,

avikkhittacitto dhamma˙m su

˙nati ekag-

gacitto yoniso manasikarotı” ti (A III174,20–175,5)

Vjb 4,21:ta˙mlakkha

˙nappattatta bhavana169

bhavati

Nidd-a I 9,2:ta˙m-lakkha

˙nappattatta bhajana

˙m170

bhavatıti171

parallel above in Vjb 4,10–11 Nidd-a I 9,2–4aha c’ ettha:“Dhammacariyagaru172

saddha173paññadigu˙nama

˙n˙dito;

Asa˙thamayavik’ assa, sumedhoamatamukho174”

Vjb 4,21:savanassety utto175 sota.

Nidd-a I 9,5:Iti vatta ca sota ca.

Abbreviations

B Burmese manuscript used for the edition of Nidd-aBe Burmese Cha

˙t˙thasangayana edition of Nidd-a and Vjb

Be 1912 Burmese edition of Vjb from 1912.C Sinhalese manuscript used for the edition of Nidd-aChs Cha

˙t˙thasangayana Edition

CSCD CDRom, Version 3, by the Vipassana Research Institute, Dhammagiri,Igatpuri, India. Databank of canonical and post-canonical Pali textsaccording to the Burmese Cha

˙t˙thasangayana Edition. [Quoted according

168) Be 1912 ya˙m vutta

˙m

169) Be 1912 bhavana˙m

170) Be, B bhavana˙m

171) B pajjatıti; Be bhajatıti172) Be °garu173) H saddho174) Be, H, S, and the commentary (see Vjb 4,13–14 = Nidd-a I 8,20–21) amatabhimukho175) For savanassety utto: Se n. 2 (po) Dhammassavanassa iti vutto.


to the pagination of the roman editions if available, otherwise accordingto the Burmese editions; paginations sometimes deviate from the printededitions by one page]

D Sinhalese manuscript used for the edition of Nidd-aE Sinhalese manuscript used for the edition of Nidd-aEe European edition = Editions of the Pali Text Society.H Sinhalese edition (Simon Hewavitarne Bequest Series) used for the edi-

tion of Nidd-aPTS Pali Text Society.S Siamese edition used for the edition of Nidd-aSe Siamese edition of Vjb

Primary References and Abbreviations

References to Pali literature are to the editions of the Pali Text Society(PTS), to the editions of the Cha

˙t˙thasangayana Series (Chs), or to the

databank on CD-ROM (CSCD). For bibliographical details see A CriticalPali Dictionary, begun by V. Trenckner, ed. D. Andersen et alii, Vol. 1,Epilegomena, Copenhagen 1948 and the lists of abbreviations in Vols. 2–3.

A Anguttara-Nikaya (PTS)As Atthasalinı. Dhammasanga

˙nı Commentary (PTS)

D Dıghanikaya (PTS)Dhp Dhammapada (PTS)Dhp-a Dhammapada

˙t˙thakatha (PTS)

It-a-transl. Dhammapala,!e Commentary on the Itivuttaka.!e Itivuttaka-a˙t˙thakatha

(Paramatthadıpanı II), Vol. I, transl. by Peter Masefield, Oxford 2008(PTS).

Kacc Kaccayanapakara˙na (Chs)

M Majjhimanikaya (PTS)Mil Milindapañha (PTS)Mp-

˙t Manorathapura

˙na˙tıka (CSCD)

Nett Nettipakara˙na (PTS)

Nett-transl. Kaccana 0era, !e Guide (Netti-ppakara˙na˙m), transl. by Bhikkhu Ña

˙na-

moli, London 1977.Nett-a Nettipakara

˙na-A

˙t˙thakatha (Chs)

Nidd Niddesa (PTS)Nidd-a Niddesa-A

˙t˙thakatha, Saddhammapajjotika I–II (PTS)

Pa˙tis-a Pa

˙tisambhidamagga

Pa˙tis-transl. !e Path of Discrimination (Pa

˙tisambhidamagga), transl. by BhikkhuÑa

˙na-

moli, with an introduction by A.K. Warder, London 1982 (PTS).Pj II Paramatthajotika II, Suttanipata-A

˙t˙thakatha (PTS)

Ps Papañcasudanı, Majjhimanikaya˙t˙thakatha (PTS)

Ps-p˙t Papañcasudanıpora

˙na˙tıka (Chs)

S Sa˙myuttanikaya (PTS)


Sp Samantapasadika, Vinaya˙t˙thakatha (PTS)

Sp-˙t Saratthadıpanı, Vinaya

˙tıka (Chs)

Spk Saratthapakasinı, Sa˙myuttanikaya

˙t˙thakatha (PTS)

Sv Sumangalavilasinı, Dıghanikaya˙t˙thakatha (PTS)

Sv-p˙t Dıghanikaya

˙t˙thakatha

˙tıka Lınatthava

˙n˙nana (PTS)

Ud-a Udana-A˙t˙thakatha (PTS)

Ud-a-transl. Dhammapala, !e Udana Commentary (Paramatthadıpanı nama Udana˙t-

˙thakatha), transl. by Peter Masefield, 2 Vols., Oxford 1994, 1995.

Vibh-a Sammohavinodanı, Vibhanga˙t˙thakatha (PTS)

Vin Vinaya Pi˙taka (PTS)

Vism Visuddhimagga (PTS)Vism-m

˙t Paramatthamañjusa, Visuddhimaggamaha

˙tıka (Chs)

Vjb Vajirabuddhi˙tıka, Vinaya

˙tıka (Chs)

Vmv Vimativinodanı˙tıka, Vinaya

˙tıka (Chs)

References

Bollée 1969 W.B. Bollée, “Die Stellung der Vinaya-˙tıkas in der Pali-Lite-

ratur”, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesell-schaft, Supplementa I, 825–835.

Geiger 1986 Wilhelm Geiger, Culture of Ceylon in mediaeval times, ed.Heinz Bechert, Stuttgart: 2., unveränderte Auflage (Veröf-fentlichungen des Seminars für Indologie und Buddhismus-kunde der Universität Göttingen, Nr. 4)

von Hinüber 1996 Oskar von Hinüber, A Handbook of Pali Literature,Berlin:Walter de Gruyter (Indian Philology and South AsianStudies, vol. 2).

von Hinüber 2007 Oskar von Hinüber, “Buddhistische Kommentareaus dem alten Indien. Die Erklärung des 0eravada-Kanons”, in: Peter Walter, Michael Quisinsky [Ed.]: Kom-mentarkulturen. Die Auslegung zentraler Texte der Weltreli-gionen. Ein vergleichender Überblick. Köln /Weimar /Wien(Menschen und Kulturen. Beihefte zum Saeculum, Bd. 3),99–115.

Jayawardhana 1994 Somapala Jayawardhana,Handbook of Pali Literature,Colombo.

Malalasekera 1994 G.P. Malalasekera, !e Pali Literature of Ceylon, Re-print Kandy (Original 1928).

Tubb & Boose 2007 Gary A. Tubb, Emery R. Boose, Scholastic Sanskrit.A Handbook for Students, New York.

Petra Kieffer-Pülz, "The Ganthārambhakathā of Upasena's Saddhammapajjotikā and Vajirabuddhi's...

Documents

Transcript of Petra Kieffer-Pülz, "The Ganthārambhakathā of Upasena's Saddhammapajjotikā and Vajirabuddhi's...