Suttas and Commentaries. Was: Bhante Jag - Euthanasia

[Mr Man]

They gave direct teachings which were applicable to their audience which were based on their understanding of Buddha Dhamma with reference to their own practice and experience + a basic knowledge in Buddhist teachings imbued through Thai culture and educational system

Witch by deffinition makes them commentaries of suttas, not suttas.

I am not saying they are sutta. I just think the term "commentary" is not the correct term for Dhamma talks which are given by the Forest tradition Ajahns. A commentary to my mind, would be a line by line analysis of a text or a formalized analysis of a specific aspect of doctrine.

People from all periods of time tend to follow contemporary teachers. These contemporary teachers understanding might be different than what is in the suttas. Mahayana started the same way. Problems withing therevada started the same way.

What are the problems? I think an important point to always bear in mind. Is what was the intention of the Buddha in giving teachings?

I think generally speaking the teachings of the "forest tradition" should be seen as exhortations rather than commentaries.

Then mahayana masters teachings should be seen the same way too. Exhortations of what Buddha said.

This is the problem with claiming that listening to contemporary teachers is like listening to the suttas speaking by themselves.

I think with the forest tradition teachings we must remember that the verbal exhortations are only one aspect of the teaching. The key aspect is practicing within the form, which has travelled through time.

[Coëmgenu]

I suspect "commentary" automatically gets carried down in any tradition, as person-to-person transmission involves, almost by definition, "commentary" – more detailed explanation – by the teacher. The writings of Mun-Lee-Chah-etc, as well as those of the PaAuk or Mahasi Sayadaws are all "commentaries".

And, in particular, the writings of modern Westerners, such as Thanissaro.

Some commentaries are considered by some individuals as more authoritative than others.

What is it that makes one commentary more authoritative than another one?

Personal opinion I would say, informed or uninformed.

[Coëmgenu]

I suspect "commentary" automatically gets carried down in any tradition, as person-to-person transmission involves, almost by definition, "commentary" – more detailed explanation – by the teacher. The writings of Mun-Lee-Chah-etc, as well as those of the PaAuk or Mahasi Sayadaws are all "commentaries".

Hi cjmacie
I don't think the teachings of Ajahn Mun, Ajahn Chah should be seen as "commentary". They gave direct teachings which were applicable to their audience which were based on their understanding of Buddha Dhamma with reference to their own practice and experience + a basic knowledge in Buddhist teachings imbued through Thai culture and educational system. It is absolutely not a theoretical tradition. The fundamental focus was on practice within a form - Vinaya + Dutanga + Kammaṭṭhana.

I think generally speaking the teachings of the "forest tradition" should be seen as exhortations rather than commentaries.

Oral commentaries are still commentaries no? Commentaries are just informed interpretations aren't they?

[mikenz66]

Oral commentaries are still commentaries no? Commentaries are just informed interpretations aren't they?

That's my view. I just don't understand where this idea that the ancient commentaries are only theoretical comes from. Anyone who has actually read, for example, the Visuddhimagga, would have a hard time defending that. There are huge tracts of practical advice on on monastic living, developing concentration, and so on. Perhaps we should drop the "commentary" label and simply speak of "ancient dhamma talks".


Mike

[mikenz66]

... my impression that you are basing your impression on the teachings of Western monks. My point is that if you read material from most Thai monks, for example, Ajahn Chah, there are plenty of commentarial and abhidhamma concepts in there, and there's none of this analysis about "this is sutta, this is abhidhamma, this is commentary"...

Not entirely, unless one considers Thanissaro's translations of Ajahns Mun, Lee, Boowa, Chah, etc. to be Thanissaro's (a Western monk's) teachings. It's clear in those writings that those teachers were teaching people to understand what they understood, from what they were taught (mostly orally), and simply used the ideas in whatever way helped convey and inspire understanding. By "ideas" I mean dhamma points, which someone could try to trace back to this or that sutta or commentary, but which these teachers probably learned from their teachers similarly as simply dhamma, with perhaps some sense of sutta passages (which they might have known only from Thai translations), but without all the baggage (in the context of oral presentation) of citations and footnotes.

Well, that's the point. Ajahn Chah just uses the idea that he's learned from his own study. There are plenty of commentary/abhidhamma ideas in Ajahn Chah's talks (conventional and ultimate reality - to take a very simple example). And that's how you'd expect a living tradition to develop.

As Coëmgenu said: "... to these people, the suttas may be seen as primarily pedagogical, rather than primarily historical, as many moderns are wont to treat them, particularly moderns in the West."



Mike

[binocular]

This is the problem with claiming that listening to contemporary teachers is like listening to the suttas speaking by themselves.

Could you cite an example of such a claim?
I've never heard such a notion before.
---

Some commentaries are considered by some individuals as more authoritative than others.
What is it that makes one commentary more authoritative than another one?

Personal opinion I would say, informed or uninformed.

That seems arbitrary -- although much to the point.
---

Oral commentaries are still commentaries no? Commentaries are just informed interpretations aren't they?

That's my view. I just don't understand where this idea that the ancient commentaries are only theoretical comes from. Anyone who has actually read, for example, the Visuddhimagga, would have a hard time defending that. There are huge tracts of practical advice on on monastic living, developing concentration, and so on.

It appears that some people find some commentaries more authoritative than others, hence there is the Commentary, that one that some people consider the only authoritative one.

The notion of a commentary seems to imply that a commentary is something that is objective, neutral, exhaustive, authoritative. Problems occur once several texts compete for this position. How does one decide which one of them is the relevant one?

Perhaps we should drop the "commentary" label and simply speak of "ancient dhamma talks".

Such an approach seems to dethrone the Commentary, though, making it "just one among many texts." It's not clear whether many Buddhists would be on board with such an approach.

[mikenz66]

Oral commentaries are still commentaries no? Commentaries are just informed interpretations aren't they?

That's my view. I just don't understand where this idea that the ancient commentaries are only theoretical comes from. Anyone who has actually read, for example, the Visuddhimagga, would have a hard time defending that. There are huge tracts of practical advice on on monastic living, developing concentration, and so on.

It appears that some people find some commentaries more authoritative than others, hence there is the Commentary, that one that some people consider the only authoritative one.

Since it is quite common to find statements in the commentaries in general, and the Visuddhimagga in particular, like: "some say X, some say Y", or "some experience it like this, some experience it like that", it seems clear that they are designed to be an aid to practice or analysis, not the last word.

The notion of a commentary seems to imply that a commentary is something that is objective, neutral, exhaustive, authoritative. Problems occur once several texts compete for this position. How does one decide which one of them is the relevant one?

By your own investigation, givin that even within the commentaries there are different views.

Perhaps we should drop the "commentary" label and simply speak of "ancient dhamma talks".

Such an approach seems to dethrone the Commentary, though, making it "just one among many texts." It's not clear whether many Buddhists would be on board with such an approach.

There is a great variety in what "many Buddhists" think. Some think that the commentaries are worthless, and that their modern historical analysis gets closer to the truth. Others think the opposite. Others are in between...


Mike

[binocular]

The notion of a commentary seems to imply that a commentary is something that is objective, neutral, exhaustive, authoritative. Problems occur once several texts compete for this position. How does one decide which one of them is the relevant one?

By your own investigation, givin that even within the commentaries there are different views.

There is a great variety in what "many Buddhists" think. Some think that the commentaries are worthless, and that their modern historical analysis gets closer to the truth. Others think the opposite. Others are in between...

So how are we to make sense of this variety?
(In fact, I'll start a thread for this.)

[Mr Man]

Oral commentaries are still commentaries no? Commentaries are just informed interpretations aren't they?

Well if we take that definition we could also call sutta "commentaries" (sutta are informed interpretations).

As I understand it, within Theravada, there are specific pali texts that are considered as commentaries (although I don't know if there is broad agreement on what those specific texts are).

A contemporary text that I would see as a equivalent would be something like Ajahn Brahms vinaya note's due to it's style and because it was (is?) used as an authoritative text within a specific community and would be used as a point of reference.

That is something slightly different to a Dhamma talk which is given to specific audience, at a specific time (with the intention of elucidating that specific audience at that specific time). This is all just my opinion of course.

[mikenz66]

Since it is quite common to find statements in the commentaries in general, and the Visuddhimagga in particular, like: "some say X, some say Y", or "some experience it like this, some experience it like that", it seems clear that they are designed to be an aid to practice or analysis, not the last word.

See this post for some examples:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 05#p400705


Mike