Talk:Atthakatha

message: I don't think it's right to give Pali words with only some of their diacritics. It should be either all or none. I prefer to give both forms at first occurrence & may get round to that here. A partially pointed form gives a misleading impression of being the fully pointed one. Peter jackson 10:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Previously (when I initially created the table in the Buddhaghosa article [based on information in and probably influenced by the format of a table in the sporadically cited Bullitt (2002)]), I would only type in diacriticals that my own display would show and I thought having some was better than none to assist with pronunciations; however, my computer now shows all diacriticals and, regardless, I agree with your point about using some-not-all diacriticals as being misleading. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.  Thanks for the corrections. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diacritics 

message: Once the table in this article is ironed out, I'm thinking of making it a template (or, if someone else is inclined to do so, please do) so that it can be simply transcluded here and in Buddhaghosa, thus obviating the need to make identical corrections in two different articles.  Any thoughts or concerns about this? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templatizing table? 

message: Peter - I continue to be awed at your breadth of knowledge and pertinent resources.  Bravo!  In regards to the latest addition you made, I see you reference http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/archive.htm.  This interesting and valuable resource mentions the subcommentaries.  Do you think it would be out of place for me (or anyone) to add them to this article?  (In other words, I think they are worthy of mention, but I don't think they merit their own article; however, if added here, should this article's title be changed to something like "Atthakatha and Tikas," etc., etc.?) Any advice? Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For anyone who might happen upon this thread, please see Peter's recently created article, Subcommentaries, Theravada. Well done Peter! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tikas 

message: seems to be an error in this sentence: "As with the Canon itself, the contents of collected editions of the Theravadin commentaries, compiled from the fourth century CE onwards, vary between editions."
Shouldn't it be first century BCE?? the info in collected editions should probably start growing as soon as the text were first written. why does this not indicate until 4 centuries later?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poikiloid (talk • contribs) 15:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Errors 

message: Trying to figure out  -- is the Jatakatthavannana the Jataka or the commentaries, or both ?
--InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Jataka in the strict sense, the book of the Pali Canon, consists almost entirely of verses. The commentary, Jatakatthavannana, gives the stories, with the verses embedded. As the verses are often hard to make sense of without the stories, people tend to read the commentary rather than the canonical book, and it tends to be loosely called the Jataka. Peter jackson (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baffled 

message: I just want to know about the sub-commentary in Theravada Buddhism 27.55.68.205 (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub-commentary