The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

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

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by robertk »

legolas wrote: I do not deny that experiences that are in line with "nana knowledges" do occur when practicing certain types of meditation, my contention is whether these are within the Buddha's teachings.
What are these forms of meditaion and which Commentary cites them?
nathan
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by nathan »

A glass of water and a little bit of moisturizing creme will clear up that dry insight problem in a jiffy.
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by PeterB »

In all honesty much of this seems to me to be bald men discussing combs.
Splitting hairs about states which probably no one involved has any experiential knowledge of.
User avatar
legolas
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:58 am

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by legolas »

mikenz66 wrote:Thanks Retro.

I guess a supplementary question is what the faith-follower/dhamma-follower definition really means. Is it really "on the path", or a precursor to being on the path?

And is it really intended by the compilers of the Commentaries that those descriptions were supposed to be equivalent to the path/fruit description of stream entry and so on in the Abhidhamma and Commentaries. The Commentarial descriptions are presumably based in the accumulated experience of practitioners, and perhaps the terminology just shifted a little (as presumably happened with a five-fold, rather than four-fold classification of jhanas).

:anjali:
Mike
I think the term "follower" illustrates that these people are actually on the path, otherwise what are they actually following?

Dhamma/faith follower are sutta terms. The sutta descriptions are based on the accumulated experience of the Buddha (and his immediate disciples).
User avatar
legolas
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:58 am

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by legolas »

PeterB wrote:In all honesty much of this seems to me to be bald men discussing combs.
Splitting hairs about states which probably no one involved has any experiential knowledge of.
How wonderfully insightful.
User avatar
legolas
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:58 am

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by legolas »

robertk wrote:
legolas wrote: I do not deny that experiences that are in line with "nana knowledges" do occur when practicing certain types of meditation, my contention is whether these are within the Buddha's teachings.
What are these forms of meditaion and which Commentary cites them?
My understanding (and I am open to being shown to be wrong) is that the modern vipassana techniques draw their legitamacy and structure from commentarial/abhidhamma works. Whether this is true or not, I do know that I cannot find any clear legitamacy for them within the suttas.
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by PeterB »

legolas wrote:
PeterB wrote:In all honesty much of this seems to me to be bald men discussing combs.
Splitting hairs about states which probably no one involved has any experiential knowledge of.
How wonderfully insightful.

Pretty obvious actually. It requires no iddhis or depth. Clangingly obvious.
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,

On the other hand, the whole purpose of this topic (as far as I can tell) was to lay down the gauntlet and effectively say, "Well, what is different or inconsistent?"

It was never assumed that answers to those questions would be found. To that end, I think it's fine to point out those potential differences, since that's what Robert asked for... but pushing for why the/a Mahavihara interpretation is incorrect would not be appropriate in this forum.

It's a fine line, and I think people are doing a decent job of maintaining appropriate balance.

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
legolas
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:58 am

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by legolas »

PeterB wrote:
legolas wrote:
PeterB wrote:In all honesty much of this seems to me to be bald men discussing combs.
Splitting hairs about states which probably no one involved has any experiential knowledge of.
How wonderfully insightful.

Pretty obvious actually. It requires no iddhis or depth. Clangingly obvious.
Perhaps with all the hair splitting and Yul Bryner's running around looking for combs and people seemingly falling short of providing cogent arguments that you find worthwhile, one wonders what the original poster actually intended to happen. Resolution? :jumping:
User avatar
legolas
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:58 am

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by legolas »

Apologies to Robert, my previous post does not make complete sense, I actually thought Peter was the original poster. It must be my age. Apologies to Peter as well, if he will accept an apology from a balding hair-splitter.
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by PeterB »

No apologies needed. I just have this old fashioned notion that this Dhamma stuff is supposed to be experiential primarily.
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by robertk »

legolas wrote:
robertk wrote:
legolas wrote: I do not deny that experiences that are in line with "nana knowledges" do occur when practicing certain types of meditation, my contention is whether these are within the Buddha's teachings.
What are these forms of meditaion and which Commentary cites them?
My understanding (and I am open to being shown to be wrong) is that the modern vipassana techniques draw their legitamacy and structure from commentarial/abhidhamma works. Whether this is true or not, I do know that I cannot find any clear legitamacy for them within the suttas.
I am pretty sure there are no vipassana meditation techniques mentioned/ described in the Commentaries, they seem to be a recent innovation.
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 Robert,
robertk wrote: I am pretty sure there are no vipassana meditation techniques mentioned/ described in the Commentaries, they seem to be a recent innovation.
Robert's observation neatly illustrates (as do many other threads such as http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=7360 and http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=4807) that the differences between how the Suttas and Commentaries are interpreted by different members, teachers, and scholars is the key issue.

In most cases disagreements don't seem to me to have much to do with alleged inconsistencies between Sutta and Commentary. So Robert is just as skeptical of modern vipassana as Legolas... Hmmm...

However, this seems to be getting a little away from the topic...

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
legolas
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:58 am

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by legolas »

One example might be the technique of "no technique", where "developing understanding of realities" au natural looks to the abhidhamma for its validation.
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by robertk »

legolas wrote:One example might be the technique of "no technique", where "developing understanding of realities" au natural looks to the abhidhamma for its validation.
Is that something like the example by Alex (earlier in this thread): about Suppabuddha attaining while listening to a Dhamma talk, while he was on his begging round?
Post Reply