The Theravāda Tradition and Modern Pāli Scholarship: A Case of "Lost" Manuscripts Mentioned in Old Pāli Bibliographical Sources=上座部傳統與當代巴利學界 -- 古老巴利書誌所述及的「已佚失」寫本之個案
In this article I will discuss my research of the Pāli subcommentaries (?īkā) on the first four nikāyas and show that there exist two sets of such subcommentaries and not just a single set which we have in printed form (Cha??hasa?gāyana edition). The works of modern Pāli scholarship, which in this case agree with the Theravāda tradition, also usually mention only one set of the subcommentaries. However, according to some Pāli bibliographic sources and catalogues of Pāli manuscripts held in various libraries in Burma and Sri Lanka, there seem to exists another set of the subcommentaries on the four nikāyas which has been ignored/omitted by the Theravāda tradition and also considered either “lost” or “non-existent” by modern Pāli scholarship. My recent discovery of a Pāli manuscript of one of the “lost” subcommentaries in Burma gives a completely new perspective on the historical development of the two sets of the subcommentaries and, in a wider sense, also on our understanding of the available information about the history of Pāli literature. I will attempt to discuss the following important issues which resulted from this discovery: The existence of the “lost” manuscript proves that the information in some older Pāli bibliographic sources—where both sets are mentioned—is correct and that both the Theravāda tradition as well as modern Pāli scholarship ignored the “lost” texts and the bibliographic information about them. Why? The analysis of the available printed editions and catalogued manuscripts also indicates that the information on the subcommentaries given in the works of modern Pali scholarship seems to be influenced by the traditional Theravāda scholarship (both mention only one set)—although the information on the “lost” texts was easily available. My discovery of the above mentioned manuscript, which is listed in the oldest Pāli bibliographic text (Saddhammasa?gaha), also proves that this bibliographic text—often considered less reliable by modern Pāli scholarship—seems to be much more reliable than the later bibliographic sources (e.g. Sāsanavaṃsa) which have been used as main sources for modern history of Pāli literature. Therefore the sources for the available history of Pāli literature need to be re-examined in the light of the information given in the older bibliographic texts, catalogues of Pāli manuscripts, inscriptions, and the texts which—although existing in manuscript form—have not been researched yet. Considering all this, our understanding of the traditional Theravāda transmission of Pāli texts will have to be re-examined as well.
Part 1: The A??hakathās and ?īkās on the Four Nikāyas 352 Part 2: The ?īkās in Pāli Bibliographic Sources 356 2.1. Saddhammasa?gaha 2.2. The Pagan inscription 2.3. Gandhavaṃsa 2.4. Sāsanavaṃsa 2.5. Sāsanavaṃsadīpa 2.6. Pi?akat samui? 2.7. Critical Pāli Dictionary Part 3: Printed Editions and Manuscripts of the ?īkās 368 Conclusions 372 Abbreviations 376
