Hi Paul,

I think Von Hinüber is in error here. I read the name Kumaarakassapena
at the bottom (Dhp-a I 1) and this goes with the past participle
'abhiyaacito' -- requested by the Thera Kumaarakassapa.

The CPD Epilegomena assigns Buddhaghosa as the author.

Best wishes,
Jim

<< Dear Yong Peng,

It appears to be a case of tradition vs. the academics.
In "Pali Literature and Language" Geiger states,(p.32)
"According to the introductory verses, which are however
quite stereotyped, it is the Paali translation of an
original Singhalese A.t.thakathaa. In my opinion it is
quite improbable that Buddhaghosa himself was the author
of this commentary."
Geiger's only explanation is a footnote: Gnvs., p. 59, 88
(both numbers have 27 as a superscript)
I'm not certain but I believe this refers to the Gandhava.msa,
JPTS. 1886, p.54 ff.

When Von Hinüber attributes the work to Thera Kumaarakassapa
his reference is to: (Dhp-a I2 1,11*-13*)
I believe this is a reference to H.C Norman's edition of the
Commentary, (1909).

Does anyone know what the Epilegomena of the CPD says?

The Best to You,
Paul

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Ong Yong Peng" <ypong001@...> wrote:
> Dear Paul, Dimitry and friends,
>
> I do not have any references to provide, but in the preface to his
> book, Daw Mya Tin attributes the commentary to Buddhaghosa.
> http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/
>
> You are referring to Hinüber's which is later (I believe) than
> Geiger's. Both may have their arguments based on the studies and
> research they conducted. Whoever the commentator is, I am sure we
are
> referring to the same Dhammapada Commentary.
>
> metta,
> Yong Peng
>
> --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, paulocuana wrote:
> > Dear Dimitry,
> >
> > Thank you. I don't wish to argue. Just to be sure what
> > Pali work you and Yong Peng are recommending is enough.
> >
> > Peace,
> > Paul O Cuana