________________
86: Śramaņa, Vol 62, No. 3, July-September 2011 of texts belonging to the same discipline. So also Buddhadatta does not designate two of his works-Vinayavinicchaya and Uttaravinicchaya, as atthakathā, for they deal with the Vinaya in general, rather than being a commentary on one or the other text of the Vinaya; while he calls his treatise Madhuratthavilāsini atthakathā as it is a delineation on an specified text, the Buddhavamsa. Thus it is clear that the Atthakathās are the expositary treatises on the different individual texts of the Pali canon, each text having its own commentary. Moreover, the Atthakathās are distinguished from Bhāşyas in Sanskrit literature in more that one respect. The later bring out the intended meaning by exclusively explaining the meaning of words. If we take for example the commentary of Sāyaṇācārya it will be clear that the usual method followed by him in bringing out the meaning is to explain the meaning of words by giving synonyms quoting from Yāska's Nurukta. The second is to refer to the rules of Pāṇini and to Uņādisūtras in order to explain the formation of words. The third method followed very rarely is to refer to the Vanants in the text. Sāyaṇācārya adopted this method in his famous commentary on the Rgveda. In later times the celebrated commentator Mallinātha also followed, more or less, the same method and while giving a list of synonyms he quotes from Amarakoşa, Halāyudha and other cognate works. (Suttanipata A, II, Intro. P. 111)
Reference:
According to the tradition preserved in the Tamil literature Sramaņa represents three sects, viz. Anuvadins (Pakudha-Kaccayana's sect), Ajivikas (Ajivaksa) and Jams. Quoted from The Cultural Heritage of India, Vol. 1, p.389. "Attham bhasati araha suttam ga.nthamti ganahara niunam. Sasanassa hiyatthae tao suttam pavattati." Quoted in Nandisutra - Anuyogadvarasutra from Avassaya-Nijjutti - k 92 HCL J, p. 171 HIL, ii, p. 444 HCL J, p. 172
