The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
Post Reply
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by robertk »

A member here wrote this damning putdown:
The commentaries and the Visuddhimagga are not canonical. Moreover, the commentaries do not present a homogeneous doctrine. It's not uncommon to find multiple opinions presented regarding a particular canonical passage, etc. It's also not uncommon to find quite dubious etymologies of particular terms and an obvious lack of understanding of canonical metaphors, and so on. This is due to the commentaries being authored by people separated from the historical, geographical, and cultural situation of the early Buddhist community. This has been well documented by a number of translators and scholars. Thereforewhile there commentaries are also important, they aren't of the same caliber as the Tipiṭaka.
Could I ask for some evidence of their lack of homogeneous content.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Robert,
robertk wrote:Could I ask for some evidence of their lack of homogeneous content.
I'm not au fait with the specifics (as I've only read one of the two texts cover-to-cover) but supposedly the Vimuttimagga and Visuddhimagga are not always in in alignment, despite the latter being in some way apparently modelled upon the former.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by cooran »

Hello Robert,

Could you please give a link to the post in question so that we can all see the context?

with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by tiltbillings »

Sadly, very few actual commentaries are available in English, which makes for assessing them difficult for the non-Pali reader. I am too damned tired and sick at the moment to do any research, but a general comment about the commentaries is worthwhile. That differing opionion are expressed would simply be the nature of commentaries and sub-commentaries, etc., given that they are written by people of various levels of understanding over over long periods.

I certainly would not dismiss commemntaries, but they may not be the final word on a subject. They are important.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by BlackBird »

I think that's a valid statement, why regard it as putdown? I'd probably be harsher than that if caught off guard. Don't forget the generous qualifier: 'Thereforewhile there commentaries are also important, they aren't of the same caliber as the Tipiṭaka.'
Last edited by BlackBird on Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,

There's potential for this one to go off-topic very quickly, so please bear in mind the guidelines to this sub-forum.

If you don't know what they are, please review them before posting... http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=373" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by BlackBird »

OP wrote: they aren't of the same caliber as the Tipiṭaka.[/i]'
I would tend to agree, the Buddha never spoke the commentaries. So comparing the word of a Tathagata to a commentator one will naturally arrive at the conclusion that the commentators word isn't of the same caliber. The decision to take offense to such a judgement is purely gratuitous when placed in it's proper context.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by Nyana »

robertk wrote:A member here wrote this damning putdown
LOL.... You never fail to crack me up Robert.
robertk wrote:Could I ask for some evidence of their lack of homogeneous content.
I have no interest in discussing the commentaries, especially within this particular sub-forum. Some discussion has occurred on this thread:

Reliability of Mahāvihāra Commentaries?... Right View.

All the best,

Geoff
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by PeterB »

robertk wrote:A member here wrote this damning putdown:
The commentaries and the Visuddhimagga are not canonical. Moreover, the commentaries do not present a homogeneous doctrine. It's not uncommon to find multiple opinions presented regarding a particular canonical passage, etc. It's also not uncommon to find quite dubious etymologies of particular terms and an obvious lack of understanding of canonical metaphors, and so on. This is due to the commentaries being authored by people separated from the historical, geographical, and cultural situation of the early Buddhist community. This has been well documented by a number of translators and scholars. Thereforewhile there commentaries are also important, they aren't of the same caliber as the Tipiṭaka.
Could I ask for some evidence of their lack of homogeneous content.
I dont think its damning. I dont think its a put down. And I dont think its deniable.
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by cooran »

cooran wrote:Hello Robert,

Could you please give a link to the post in question so that we can all see the context?
O.K. - I'll post the link for you:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 19#p119970" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by robertk »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Robert,
robertk wrote:Could I ask for some evidence of their lack of homogeneous content.
I'm not au fait with the specifics (as I've only read one of the two texts cover-to-cover) but supposedly the Vimuttimagga and Visuddhimagga are not always in in alignment, despite the latter being in some way apparently modelled upon the former.

Metta,
Retro. :)
The vimuttimaggga is not a theravada work and the only comments on it by buddhaghosa that I am aware of are when he specifies a few of it's non- orthodox ideas.
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by robertk »

PeterB wrote:
robertk wrote:A member here wrote this damning putdown:
It's also not uncommon to find quite dubious etymologies of particular terms and an obvious lack of understanding of canonical metaphors, and so on.
Could I ask for some evidence of their lack of homogeneous content.
I dont think its damning. I dont think its a put down. And I dont think its deniable.
You think that saying " their obvious lack of understanding" is no putdown.
Perhaps you could detail some of these obvious cases for me ...
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by robertk »

Can anyone who agrees with the comments made by the member quoted in the opening post give any examples of these failings in the Commentaries?
User avatar
Assaji
Posts: 2106
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by Assaji »

robertk wrote:Can anyone who agrees with the comments made by the member quoted in the opening post give any examples of these failings in the Commentaries?
I don't like wholesale labeling of multifaceted things. The Commentaries are indeed a very rich field with high variety of viewpoints, and are not just either faulty or faultless.

For particular instances, and a good analysis, I would recommend the notes to the translations by Bhikkhu Bodhi.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Dmytro,
Dmytro wrote:
robertk wrote:Can anyone who agrees with the comments made by the member quoted in the opening post give any examples of these failings in the Commentaries?
I don't like wholesale labeling of multifaceted things. The Commentaries are indeed a very rich field with high variety of viewpoints, and are not just either faulty or faultless.

For particular instances, and a good analysis, I would recommend the notes to the translations by Bhikkhu Bodhi.
Certainly. I understand the Classical Theravada approach to be that Tipitaka has precedence over Commentary, so the analysis of scholars such as Bhikkhu Bodhi that discusses apparent contradictions between the two are an important part of developing our understanding of Theravada.

See also Geoff's comments here: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 34#p120047" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

:anjali:
Mike
Post Reply