Approaching traditional Theravada Commentaries with caution

[clw_uk]

[SPLIT TOPIC - decoupled from "in the commentaries"... where? ( viewtopic.php?f=19&t=978 ) in the Classical Theravada forum - Retro.]

My advice would be to read them with caution, although they do correctly elaborate on certain points, other times they can be wrong

[tiltbillings]

My advice would be to read them with caution, although they do correctly elaborate on certain points, other times they can be wrong

While might have reason to disagree with the commentaries, it should not be done lightly. In other words there needs to be good, reasoned and exampled cause for doing so.

[clw_uk]

My advice would be to read them with caution, although they do correctly elaborate on certain points, other times they can be wrong

While might have reason to disagree with the commentaries, it should not be done lightly. In other words there needs to be good, reasoned and exampled cause for doing so.

I agree, i was merely suggesting that one have caution when reading them, they might not be accurate

[mikenz66]

I agree, i was merely suggesting that one have caution when reading them, they might not be accurate

This may be true but I would advise being even more careful with arguments made in ignorance of the Commentaries.

Metta
Mike

[tiltbillings]

they might not be accurate

And upon what basis do you determine that?

[clw_uk]

they might not be accurate

And upon what basis do you determine that?

Each commentary needs to be approached with caution because they are not the words of the Buddha but of later disciples that may still have had unknowing in them


Its not to say they are worthless, i have found that some have very good explanations as well as some that were not so good, each commentary should be investigated and compared with ones own experience and with what the suttas say etc

[tiltbillings]

they might not be accurate

And upon what basis do you determine that?

Each commentary needs to be approached with caution because they are not the words of the Buddha but of later disciples that may still have had unknowing in them

Unknowing in them. That maybe, particularly in terms of modern history, but I would take the commentaries far more seriously in terms of doctrinal matters than I would most of the rebirth deniers I have seen who seem to have a great deal of "unknowing in them."

[clw_uk]

Unknowing in them. That maybe, particularly in terms of modern history, but I would take the commentaries far more seriously in terms of doctrinal matters than I would most of the rebirth deniers I have seen who seem to have a great deal of "unknowing in them."

Why does rebirth denial come into this

[tiltbillings]

Why does rebirth denial come into this

It is a good example of the problem discussed.

[clw_uk]

Why does rebirth denial come into this

It is a good example of the problem discussed.

Do you mean that the unknowing in the person could cause them to miss what the commentary is saying?

[Ben]

Hi Craig

I'm interested to know what qualifies you to criticise the commentaries?
Are you intimately familiar with them? Are you so highly realised yourself that you can discern error of view in the commentarial authors?

B

[clw_uk]

Hi Craig

I'm interested to know what qualifies you to criticise the commentaries?
Are you intimately familiar with them? Are you so highly realised yourself that you can discern error of view in the commentarial authors?

B

I havent, all i did was offer some friendly advice, whats wrong in advising someone to have some caution or healty skepticism when reading them?

[mikenz66]

Why does rebirth denial come into this

Perhaps because the Commentaries are quite clear about it, but a common argument that one hears is that the "serious Suttas" don't talk about literal rebirth.

Another example would be Anatta, where the Commentaries (as quoted in the Visuddhimagga) seem quite clear that you won't find a self anywhere. For example:

"For there is suffering, but none who suffers;
Doing exists although there is no doer;
Extinction is but no extinguished person;
Although there is a path, there is no goer."

Visuddhimagga, XVI, 90.

However, the Suttas never quite seem to deny a "self outside the khandas", something Thanissaro Bhikkhu, for example, makes a lot of with his "not-self strategy" idea that permeates his writing and translations:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... tself.html

I do, of course, have a lot of respect for Ven Thanissaro. He's perhaps a good example of someone who has looked carefully and sincerely and rejected certain parts of the standard Theravada in favour of his readings and experience. However, whether or not one agrees with him, I think that it is important to realise that his translation on Access to Insight have his particular opinions embedded. And unlike Bhikkhu Bodhi he is not always clear where he differs from the Commentaries. Bhikkhu Bodhi is always at great pains to state: "The commentary says X, I disagree because of Y".

Metta
Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Once back at E-Sangha, venerable Dhammanando provided a "priority list" sourced from the commentaries themselves which showed the respective priority that certain sources of information (e.g. Suttas, Vinaya, Abhidhamma, Commentaries, other opinion) should be afforded. The list is of course self-referential with respect the commentaries (which may not make it entirely objective, or at worst, an attempt to establish an intellectual monopoly) but it would be good if venerable Dhammanando would be able to repost that list here, so we can understand how to, from a Classical Theravada perspective, prioritise different sources of Buddhist information.

Metta,
Retro.

[clw_uk]

Well the main points i disagree with the commentaries on comes from meditation, the instructions in the Visuddhimagga to mindfulness of breathing held me back, it was only when i looked just at the sutta (and some teachings from Ven. U Vimalaramsi) did i make progress and now when looking back at the Visuddhimagga instructions it doesnt correspond much with my meditation exp.



However the instructions on loving-kindness did help


Now of course this is in reguards to meditation so it is probably down to one technique not working while another one does but it does show how they must be approached with caution, which is all i ever said


In reguards to doctrine they hit the mark except on some points that i personally disagree with

[zavk]

Hi friends,

First of all, let me say that I am not very well read when it comes to the suttas and commentaries. I have only read the texts that directly address my formal practice and bits and pieces of others that elaborate on certain key doctrines, concepts and ideas.

I appreciate what you are suggesting Craig, that one ought to read the commentaries with critical reflexivity. But I also appreciate what Tilt is cautioning against, that one ought not to dismiss the commentaries too hastily without a nuanced understanding of the wider scriptural tradition.

But perhaps we could shift the focus here so that what we really examine is not so much the texts but the process of reading. This is not to dismiss the importance of the texts, but to suggest that these texts we are interested in do not exist outside their relationship with the reader, and the two are linked by the process of reading (we can say that a certain co-dependently originated relationship produce and shape them). To inquire into 'reading' is to be mindful of the dynamics behind language, words, meaning, interpretation. Regardless of whether one feels that a text is accurate or not, the notions of 'accuracy' and 'inaccuracy' are not self-evident but arise out of the processes of language, words, meaning, interpretation.

IMO, to inquire into the nature of language and words, the processes of words and meaning-making, is to inquire into the nature of thought, consciousness and subjectivity. Hence, I'd say that it falls within the purview of the dhamma.

Best wishes,
zavk

[jcsuperstar]

the thing about the commentaries that makes them worth looking into beyond this idea that they were writen by arahants or whatever, is they were writen by people closer to the buddha's time, who's language and culture were very similar to his. something no modern commentator can say.

[Dhammanando]

Hi Retro,

Once back at E-Sangha, venerable Dhammanando provided a "priority list" sourced from the commentaries themselves which showed the respective priority that certain sources of information (e.g. Suttas, Vinaya, Abhidhamma, Commentaries, other opinion) should be afforded.

I posted it here too:

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=914

Best wishes,
Dhammanando Bhikkhu

[retrofuturist]

1. Sutta: the three baskets of the Tipiṭaka.
2. Suttānuloma: a direct inference from the Tipiṭaka.
3. Atthakathā: a commentary.
4. Attanomati: the personal opinions of later generations of teachers.

[phil]

Hi all

I posted this elsewhere before self-editing it out, but I think Bhikkhu Bodhi's talks on the Majhimma Nikaya do somewhat of a disservice to the commentaries, if I may use that blanket term. During a typical talk, there are usually a couple of cases where he says he disagrees with the commentary and expresses instead his own opinion. By virtue of his position as one of the leading translators he is seen as an authoritive figure, which is really questionable, if you think about it. He's a wonderful, modest, generous man (we all know about how he struggles constantly with migraines, but does all his great work and talks) but I think it's odd that a modern day bhikkhu's voice can come to be seen even nearly as authoritative as the ancient commentaries - but it is.

It's difficult to access the commentaries in English, but if possible I would like to read the commentary for every sutta I like, and sit with it, reflecting patiently on any gap between the way I interpreted it and the way the commentary puts it. I will continue to be motivated and inspired by my interpretation, but will hopefully (who knows) make the effort to reflect on the commentary as well. So far I haven't, one's own interpretation is so delicious!

Metta,

Phil