1919.] Buddhaghosa’s Commentaries. 115 
the Milinda-pafiho,’ the Pannattivada of teachers other than 
the Theravadins,’ certain Vitandavadins, Pakativada° (the 
Sankhya or the yoga system), and the views of Bhikkhus * of Cey- 
lon. To sum up: we have seen that there is evidence enough to’ 
confirm the truth of the tradition that neither Buddhaghosa, 
nor Thera Mahinda, nor the Theras of old, were the originators 
of the commentaries ; but we cannot agree with them when 
they all deny their claim to originality. The Niddesa which is 
an old commentary on certain suttas in the Sutta Nipata can- 
not compare favourably with Buddhaghosa’s Paramatthajotika. 
The Petakopadesa! of Mahakaccayana, of which a passage 
is quoted by Buddhaghosa, is not the Atthasalini. In justice 
to all, we can say that Buddha himself, his disciples and their 
disciples were those who prepared the way for great Buddha- 
ghosa, the commentator. 
CnaptTer II. 
Enquiries into Buddhaghosa’s Commentaries. 
4. critical survey of Buddhaghosa’s works suggests to an 
inquiring mind many far-reaching questions of which very few 
Se tre rare 
1 Kathavatthu Commentary by Buddhaghosa; Vasumitra’s work on 
the 18 schools, the Samanadha Paracancakra by Bhavya, etc. 
Vide uddhist Manual of Psychological Ethics,” pp. XXiii-xxiv. 
3 & + Atthasalini, pp. 151, 399, 407, 420. 
5 Sumangala-vilasini, pp. 11 
6 Atthasalini, pp. 112, 114, 119, 120, 122, 142. 
7 Puggala Pafifatti Commentary, P.T.S., pp. 173-175. 
3 Atthasdlini (Ceylon Edition), pp. 3, 90, 92, 241. 
9 Puggala Pafifiatti Commentary (Ceylon Edition), p. 172. 
** Titthiyinam anupakatipurisadikassa va »” (Visuddhimagga, 
. 407). 
** Kimpakativadinam pakativiya avijja pi akoranam mulakora- 
nam lokass&ti,”’ p- ‘ 
10 Atthasalini, p. 165; Petake Vuttarh. 
