Hi Rett,

> Good point. I just had a quick look at the introductory verses and

they

> do seem to say that the text is translated from Sinhala

(diipabhaasa)

> into Pali (tantibhaasa). However it does also seem to say (now from
> Burlingame's translation) that the author/translator intends to
> embellish the translation with his own explanations when necessary,
> though sticking to the spirit of the original.

Okay, that points to Buddhaghosa as having a hand in the word-by-word
commentary.

> > In my opinion, the a.t.thakathaas
> > originated with the a.t.thakathaacariyas, all of whom were

arahants

> > belonging to the first few centuries of the saasana.
> >
>
> Do you place any truck in the idea that works composed within a

school

> or tradition, often are ascribed to the founder of the school, even

if

> composed much later? (like a trademark, or a way of giving the text
> more authority) So that elaborate works, which on linguistic grounds
> couldn't have been composed in the first few centuries of the

Sasana,

> could still have originated in an earlier form at that time?

I'm having a little trouble following you. However, in spite of this,
I'm inclined to disagree with the first part but agree with the last
part. It could be that a text evolves and expands over a long period
of time. But it's very hard to know what the original work was like if
it has disappeared. I don't know too much about the dating of texts or
contents, and their authorship. It's really a difficult thing for me
to talk about.

> > Later, I'll have a look at the line you quoted from Dhp-a in your
> > subsequent post which I found very interesting.
>
> I hope you have time to do so as it's been puzzling me a lot. Thanks
> for your response.

I checked the Thai Budsir reading and it is close to H.C. Norman's
version. The only difference is that instead of '...khaadi, taa', the
Thai version reads '...khaaditaa...' a past participle with 'imaaya'
as the instrumental agent (by her). There is a double quotation mark
before 'imaaya'. I'd have to agree that '...khaadi, taa' is not right.
I couldn't tell you which of the two readings, Thai or Burmese, is
better.

In my earlier message I misspelt a word. 'exhonerated' should have
been 'exonerated'.

Best wishes,
Jim