Samantapāsādikā, the Theravāda Vinaya commentary is notable for being the only commentary (aṭṭhakathā) with three separate sub-commentarie (ṭikās)─Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (tenth century) by Vajirabuddhi Thera, Sāratthadīpanīṭīkā (twelfth century) by Sariputta Thera, and Vimativinodanīṭikā (twelfth or thirteenth century) by Coļiya Kassapa Thera─composed between the tenth and thirteenth centuries in ancient Sri Lanka and South India. The presence of the three sub-commentaries for a single commentary during this period raises intriguing questions. This study aims to investigate the motivations for composing these three sub-commentaries to Samantapāsādika during the above specified period. Findings of this research indicate that various factors influenced the production of three separate tīkās for Samantapāsādikā. These factors include contradictory Vinaya definitions provided by previous sub-commentators, the sectarianism within Sri Lankan Buddhist monasticism, the three sāsāna reformations of the medieval Sri Lanka, the Mahāvihāra (the Great Monastery) perspective on the Vinaya, and the interconnectedness of the Mahāvihāra monks with their counterparts in South India and Burma. The scholarly monks of the Mahāvihāra in ancient Sri Lanka, as well as those in other regions, South India (Coļa country/Damiļa-raṭṭha) and Burma (Myanmar/Māramma-raṭṭha), exhibited significant interconnections through their engagement in both monastic and scholarly pursuits. Notably, these authors critically evaluated one another’s scholarly works in accordance with the analytical tradition of Theravāda. Collectively, these factors contributed to the production of three sub-commentaries for Samantapāsādikā between the tenth and thirteenth centuries.