Re: email attachments

1. Marasinghe writes that it is not known why the Sinhalese  commentaries had to be translated into Pāli, but he impures  that the Buddhist monks of that time had wanted to keep the knowledge to themselves. Many of the commentators give the reasons. They wanted the texts to be accessible to a wider circle, including also those living in South India who did not necessarily read and speak Sinhalese.

2.  Marasinghe draws the conclusion that the wish of the monks to keep their knowledge to themselves  is the reason why the original Sinhalese commentaries were burnt immediately after the Pali commentaries were completed.

We do not have any proof that the early commentaries ever were burnt or deliberately destroyed one way or other. As I have shown for at least one of the early sources, namely the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it was in use at least till to the tenth century AD. Regarding the other early commentaries (Kurundī, Mahapaccarī, Mahā-Aṭṭhakathā, etc.) they are not only quoted by the authors of the aṭṭhakathā layer (among them Buddhaghosa), but also by still younger subcommentators (10th to 13th centuries). Whether these had direct access to the texts or quoted them via the aṭṭhakathās has to be checked for each of them by examining the several hundreds of quotations preserved in the commentaries and subcommentaries, before any such statement as Marasinghe's can be made.

3. Texts fell into oblivion not because they were destroyed, but because they were no longer copied which in a climate as the one in Sri Lanka means that the palm leaves get eaten by insects, etc. Furthermore, it is a natural process that earlier commentaries are buried in oblivion when an authoritative commentary has been written which seems to cover the topic. The same we have with the large convolut of gaṇṭhipada commentaries written between the aṭṭhakathās and the subcommentaries. Most of them were no longer copied when the ṭīkās came into being.

4. Marasinghe accuses Buddhaghosa of having introduced new elements into Buddhism in his commentary to the Jātakas. This commentary is ascribed to Buddhaghosa by tradition, but there are serious doubts that this commentary stems from his pen, which you can read in von Hinüber's Handbook of Pāli Literature.

5. Marasinghe writes that Buddhaghosa in his commentary to the Ratanasutta introduced new elements into Buddhism. Here the same holds true. The commentary to the Suttanipāta where the Ratanasutta is transmitted  is ascribed to Buddhaghosa by tradition, but it certainly is not by Buddhaghosa, but  by a younger author.

I do not want to say that no new elements were introduced into Buddhism in the commentaries  (it would be a miracle if not), but it needs thorough examination of each single topic, and each commentary before one can make such general statements.