________________
80: Śramaņa, Vol 62, No. 3, July-September 2011 Sanskrit so much so that not only one and the same sentence contains portions written in two languages, but even a Sanskrit stem has Prakrit terminations at times, Cuņņī is written in prose, and this is another respect in which it differs from Nijjutti and Bhāsa. Bhāsa is styled as Gāhā, too, since it is composed in gāthās in Prakrit.
Besides, there are (1) Vștti, (2) Vivști, (3) Vivarana, (4) Vivecana, (5)Vyākkhyā, (6) Vārtika, (7) Dīpikā, (8) Phakkikā, (9) Avacūri, (10) Avacūrņi, (11) Arthalava, (12) Akşarārtha, (13) Bālāvabodha, (14) Pañjikā, (15) Țippaņaka, (16) Paryāya and (17) Chāyā types of commentarial literature on Agamic as well as on non-Agamic texts.
Exegetical Literature of the Buddhists
So far as the origin of the Buddhist commentarial literature is concerned, it led us to the fact that the need for an accurate interpretation of the Buddha's teachings, the guiding principle of life and action of the members of the Samgha, was felt from the very beginning while the Master was alive. During the life time of the Buddha there was the advantage of referring a disputed question for solution to the Master himself and herein we met with the first stage in the origin of the comments). But after his Parinibbāna, the chief and revered disciples were used to be approached for dispelling the disputes and their comments must have been considered decisive and authentic and hence they were no doubt preserved orally by the disciples from generation to generation. When the commentaries were compiled these oral comments were embodied in the great Atthakathas of Sinhala, which have been quoted by Buddhaghosa in his commentaries.
The lineage of the exegetical literature of the Therāvada Buddhism, which starts right from the lifetime of the Buddha, was pursued and cultivated in the Buddhist Vihāras for a pretty long time. Naturally, marked with vast differences in methodology, style and technique of treatment, the exegetical literature contains a number
