There might be some confusion because of the title you used. It really ought to have “Suttasangaha Atthakatha, Sinhalese translation” as the title. What you have now as the title, “Sinhalese Atthakatha (Atuwa, Sinhalese translation of Atthakatha, Commentaries)” really belongs in the description. It would be like uploading a translation of the Digha Nikaya and titling it “Sutta Pitaka, English translation” 
Also, I think it really shouldn’t be called “Sinhalese Atthakatha.” Wouldn’t Pali Atthakatha be more accurate? Also better for keyword searching.
Interesting that the book doesn’t seem to have a copyright in the front. But I’m sure you could find out if you just called the BCC.
2 Likes
I’ll keep it wrong for the time being, because this is what represents the Sinhalese translation of the Commentaries in my profile. If you contact BCC and get permission for me to upload it, I will upload it with proper title including all the other books from the set. 
I have a large collection of the English translations of the Pali Commentaries.
But my donors spent a lot of money (especially PTS translations are very expensive) and they are mostly Abhidhamma and Khuddaka Nikaya. Vinaya is available as “Shan-Chien-P’i-P’o-Sha, Sanghabhadra’s Chinese Samantapasadika” (tr. by Prof. P.V. Bapat and Prof. A. Hirakawa), but it is very inaccurate, because it is a translation from two Buddhist Vinaya Pitakas into one… (and, as you would expect, it doesn’t mention which part is selected from which source…)
I heard that a Sri Lanka monk started a translation of MNA and that it was rejected by PTS because it doesn’t come to their standard. I contacted PTS and they said they never got something like that.
Right. For some reason they have avoided the major Sutta commentaries.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, but this isn’t what this text is. It is a translation from a Chinese text whose title would have been something like Sudassanavinayavibhāsā. This text was taken from Sri Lanka to China and translated there around 400 CE or a bit later. Some parts of it bear much in common with the Samantapasadika, so the translators, and several other scholars, regard it as a Chinese translation of the Samantapasadika.
Personally I doubt this, as the differences are simply too great, and follow a consistent pattern. I believe—following Guruge—that the Sudassanavinayavibhāsā is more likely to have been translated from an otherwise lost version of the old Sinhala commentaries. Hence, it would have been a source work for the Samantapasadika, or else they both drew from a separate source commentary that has been lost.
Scholars explain the differences by saying that the translation was incomplete, but to me this is not convincing. The differences are not random, but follow a pattern that one might expect if an old commentary were updated for the purposes of the Mahavihara.
As an example, in the Sudassanavinayavibhāsā one arahant—Moggaliputtatissa if I recall correctly—is said to be an expert in the Tripitaka, whereas in the Samantapasadika he is said to be an expert in the Tripitaka and commentaries. In another case, an arahant is said to have the six abhinna in the Sudassanavinayavibhāsā, but the patisambhidas in the Samantapasadika; as is well-known, the patisambhidas were especially emphasized in the Mahavihara. These kinds of differences are found rather consistently, and point to an editorial process that adapted the old commentary to the then-current perspective of the Mahavihara.
There was one monk in Brisbane doing this, he was a student of Rod Bucknell. But I believe he was working on a single vagga, or maybe a pannasa. But I haven’t heard from him in years, I suspect he may have disrobed.
Their output has been very slow.
1 Like
I have already translated commentaries and subcommentaries for MN 100. Sangarava Sutta into English (and Czech) also. I also translated a portion of MN Rathavinita Sutta Commentary, although I am not sure whether I still have it and what language that was.
If I can get in my hands whatever the monk has done, I may like to add what’s missing or at least make it available to many people. And with your help, we can make it suitable even for official publishing. 
Any way how to get the draft(s)?
3 Likes
Is this what Bhante means?
But that’s normal at the endings of Chinese translated works. But here is my second opinion. Maybe Abhayagiri monastery vinaya comes from a time where Sthavira and Dharmaguptaka vinaya merged together. Since in Thailand there is Theravāda Dharmaguptaka. @sujato
But this as seen start very far in the second book. I didn’t study the first book yet. I’m going very fast trough them search about what is mentioned about gods, yakkhas etc.
Am I correct into understanding that at 1.135 what is being said is that “if one sets aside insight for Devotion to Maitreya Liberation will not be achieved.” which is distinct from saying that one cannot engage in both practices of insight and devotion together and achieve Liberation ". It seems that we are not excluding the ability of doing both with success.