>
>When people think that Buddhaghosa is wrong, could you, please, give
>concrete examples. Have you heard of such? Or maybe just one concrete
>example?

Here is an example which I read of in an article yesterday, and which
I promised to provide earlier today. In D27 at the end of section
four, (PTS Diigha Nikaaya, Vol iii, page 81, line 20 ) the bhikkhus
are disparagingly referred to by brahmins as 'bandhupaadaapacce'
which means 'offspring of the feet of the kinsman'. Kinsman (bandhu)
is an epithet of Brahman, from whose mouth the brahmins are said to
originate. This context has already been established, since a few
lines earlier the brahmins describe themselves as 'mukhato jaataa
brahmajaa'.

This is an allusion to the Rig Veda X,19,13 "His mouth was the
Braahman...from his two feet the ´Sudra was born". (Macdonell, page
201)

Buddhaghosa, in the Sumangalavilaasinii (vol iii, p862) misses that
'Bandhu' is an epithet of Brahman, and instead glosses: bandhuu ti
maarassa bandhubhuute maarapakkhike. either "Allies of Maara" in acc
plural (-uu), or if singular perhaps locative of sense. 'in the
sense: ally of maara'. In any case Buddhaghosa has given the wrong
meaning for the word 'Bandhu' at that point in the commentary by
missing that it is just an epithet. I don't see why this should in
any way detract from Buddhaghosa's deserved reputation, or the
reputation of the commentarial tradition of which he was the
custodian. It is only if we make the exaggerated claim that he could
somehow be entirely free of mistakes (over the course of thousands of
pages of exegetical writing) that the occasional miss would count
against him. I doubt that he himself would ever have made the claim
"my work is entirely without errors".

Sources:
Gombrich, Richard, "The Buddha's Book of Genesis", Indo Iranian Journal 35
Macdonell, A.A., A Vedic Reader for Students
PTS editions of D, and commentary.
PED
Cone, Margeret, A Dictionary of Pali