1919. ] Buddhaghosa’s Commentaries. lll 
bhajaniya) based upon the sutta exposition.' Sariputta’s 
exposition contains many of the stock-passages, or the older 
disconnected materials with which the whole of the Pitaka 
literature, as we may reasonably suppose, was built up. This 
piece of independent commentary has been tacked on to the 
Satipatthana Sutta, itself a commentary, and furnishes a 
datum of distinction between the Satipatthana sutta in the 
Majjhima nikaya and the Mahasatipatthana sutta in the Digha- 
Nikaya. 
A complete catechism of important terms and passages of 
exegetical nature is ascribed to Sariputta and is familiarly 
known as the Maha Sangiti Suttanta,* of which a Buddhist 
n 
Sariputta i in the singularly interesting catechism above referred 
to, characterises two of the older collections, the Samyutta and 
the Anguttara and certain books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, 
notably the Puggala Pafifiatti, the materials of which were 
mostly drawn from the Anguttara nikaya. This is a fact which 
alone can bring home to us the nature of Sariputta’s work 
in connection with the Pitaka literature. But Sariputta does 
not exhaust the list. We have to consider other renowned 
and profoundly learned disciples of Buddha, among whom 
some were women, who in their own way helped forward the 
process of. development of the porns: Take for ex- 
one in Buddhist Sanskrit, which are all ascribed to him. The 
few fragments by Mahakaccino (Mahakaccayano) which have 
reached us are important for another reason, as exhibiting 
judge from these older fragments, seldom indulges in mechanical 
enumeration and coining of technical terms as a a did. 
; Vibhanga, 193- 
2 Digha haga: pp By iT bide for references Prof. Takakusu’s highly 
instructive article on the Sarvastivadins in J.P.T.S., 1905, 
ve ahoti C’ Syasm Mahakacc&noimassa hagavata sarnkitte: 
Vv n 
+ Majjhima Nikaya, I, pp. 110 F: TH, pp. 78, 194, 223. 
5 Viz, Nettipakarana, Petakopadesa, Jfianaprasth&na Sastra. 
