Thank you very much for this, Petra. Very helpful. I shall make a point of
investigating these quotations in as much detail, and as best I can, over
time.
Best wishes,
Khristos
On 6 December 2010 22:07, petra kieffer-Pülz <kiepue@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Khristos,
>
> the porana quotations in the Vism are found often with the same
> source references in the Samantapasadika and elsewhere. Which of
> these commentaries had been written first, and wether the younger
> commentaries simply took these passages from the commentaries written
> earlier in the 5th century or whether they quoted independently from
> the original old commentaries (SIHALATTHAKATHA) has to be checked for
> each quotation. The Samantapaasaadikaa at different places has long
> passages in common with the Vism (Sp 157,10-158,15 = Vism
> 376,29-378,2; 158,16ff. = Vism 410,25ff.).
>
> In order that you might see, what I meant, here some parallels for
> the first two to three tenaahu poraa.naa.quotations in the Vism:
>
> Vism 151,22-152,15 (tenaahu poraa.naa) corresponds to Patis-a I
> 231,17-232,2 (the whole passage is characterized as a quotation by ti
> vuttattaa, thus the tenaahu poraa.naa also is taken over, and no
> first-hand quotation)
> Vism 206, 23-24 (tenaahu poraa.naa) similar to AN-a II 35,2-3 (only
> the first verse, and no source is given).
> Vism 206,23-27 = Dhs-a 298 = Nidd II 42(both with tenaahu poraa.naa)
> Vism 206,25-212,15 = Sp 119,22-125,9 (first tennahu poraa.naa
> quotation not marked, but second, Sp 122,17)
>
> etc.
>
> Each verse of such quotations has to be checked, since it maybe that
> only one of them is quoted in other contexts. Furthermore one has to
> check the whole context in order to see which text copied which.
>
> Regarding the statement that the so-called Sihalatthakatha was
> destroyed after the commentaries of the 5th century were written,
> this certainely is not correct. For at least two of the early
> commentaries, i.e. the Andhaka-Atthakatha and the Maha-Atthakatha we
> have quotations in at least some texts (ca. from the 9th century
> onwards) which are not preserved in any older text handed down to us.
> Thus at least in some regions at least some of the early commentaries
> were preserved and handed down even after the 5th/6th centuries.
>
> Regarding the identity of the poraa.naa all statements are mere
> speculations as long as the quotations itself are not investigated.
>
> I hope, this is of some help,
>
> Best, Petra
>
> ****************************************
>
> Dr. Petra Kieffer-Pülz
> Wilhelm-Külz-Strasse 2
> 99423 Weimar
> Tel. 03643/ 770 447
> kiepue@... <kiepue%40t-online.de> (priv.)
> petra.kieffer-puelz@... <petra.kieffer-puelz%40adwmainz.de>
> www.pali.adwmainz.de
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]