The completion of the last ṭīkā edition of Primoz Pecenko undertaken before his early death is welcome news. Finishing off something of this sort is too often a rather thankless task, so special credit must go to Tamara Ditrich for performing this work.
One of the most interesting historical features of the Theriya school, writing in Pali, is the manner in which the main focus of activity seems to have shifted between southern India and Ceylon. In the first half of the first millennium ad at least, the main activity takes place on the island. Earlier it may have been further north. In the second half of the first millennium most of the literary activity in Pali seems to take place in the Tamil country, associated with such names as Ānanda and Dhammapāla. In the twelfth century we see the focus shift back to Ceylon with the revival associated with the name of Sāriputta and others. It is this which becomes the literary orthodoxy transmitted in later Southern Buddhism.
Such developments took place in a number of areas, but the one that concerns us here is the history of the ṭīkās to the four Āgama commentaries of Buddhaghosa. In Helmer Smith's Epilegomena to the Critical Pāli Dictionary (1948) four ṭīkās (Līnatthappakāsinī I–IV) attributed to Dhammapāla and four attributed to Sāriputta (Sāratthamañjūsā I–IV) are listed. The former are classified as porāṇaṭīkā (pṭ) and the latter simply as ṭīkā (ṭ). However, when it comes to printed editions, only the first three of Dhammapāla's pṭ have hitherto been published in any version. Similarly, only the fourth part of Sāriputta's ṭ (on the Aṅguttaranikāya) (=Mp-ṭ) has been published. Hence doubts have been expressed as to whether the fourth part of Dhammapāla's ṭīkā and the first three parts of Sāriputta's have ever existed.
Burmese scholars have from time to time indicated the existence in Burma of the former: Dhammapāla's ṭīkā on the Aṅguttara commentary. To Pecenko goes the credit of obtaining a copy of a manuscript of this and completing the bulk of the editorial work on it. Although Pecenko (JPTS XXVII, 2002) has argued that full sets of both ṭīkās have existed and may still exist, I am not yet convinced that this is the case. It seems more likely that Sāriputta wrote his ṭīkā on the Aṅguttara commentary precisely because only a partial manuscript of Dhammapāla's was extant. I find it regrettable therefore that the numeral catutthā “fourth” has been included in the title. As far as I know, this inclusion of a numeral in the title has no basis in any manuscript or edition of any of the pṭs. This point applies especially to Pecenko's three volumes of his incomplete edition of Mp-ṭ, although in that case the use of the numeral can be justified by reference to the late fourteenth-century Saddhammasaṅgaha. But the account of the creation of the ṭīkās in that work seems confused and historically unreliable. There is no reason to think that either Dhammapāla or Sāriputta ever used such a numbering.
The edition is based upon a single Burmese Ms copied in Rangoon in 1892. At least one other Ms exists in Burma, but Pecenko's death prevented his obtaining a copy of it. This edition is much enlarged by the inclusion of the corresponding passages of Sāriputta's ṭīkā. This seems rather wasteful, given that many are easily located in Pecenko's edition of this part of that ṭīkā. It is in any case easier to refer to a separate volume for comparison rather than to have to look at notes, some of which are at the foot of the page and others collected into an appendix. Moreover, the variant readings of Mp-ṭ are only given in Pecenko's edition; so that has in any case to be looked at. For the tikanipāta, passages have been cited from the Burmese edition, since Pecenko's edition of Mp-ṭ does not reach so far. This is obviously useful.
Sāriputta was a leading figure in the twelfth-century revival of Buddhist activity in Ceylon, so this work provides a valuable means of further assessing his contribution. After a preliminary look, it seems that there is very little that is new or original in his writing. He has a very thorough knowledge of the earlier commentaries and subcommentaries and draws material from a number of them. Of course, if his aim was to replace an incomplete or partially lost ṭīkā to the Aṅguttara, then originality would not have been his objective in this work.
It is to be hoped that Pecenko's work will make possible a more complete evaluation of Sāriputta's writings and a better understanding of his historical role in the history of Southern Buddhism.
