The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by tiltbillings »

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.
As in the Sujin Boriharnwanaket "method."
>> 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
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: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?
Nothing like.
User avatar
legolas
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:58 am

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by legolas »

tiltbillings wrote:
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.
As in the Sujin Boriharnwanaket "method."
Absolutely.
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by Nyana »

mikenz66 wrote: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.
Issues of inconsistencies and dubious interpretations present in the commentarial literature have been noted by various teachers, translators, and scholars, largely based on quite reasonable readings of the different historical strata of texts. But there is still plenty of middle ground between the two extremes of dogmatic allegiance to every commentarial word an letter on the one hand, and dogmatic wholesale rejection of all commentary on the other. As was already mentioned in the post which Robert quoted at the start of this thread: "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. Therefore, while the commentaries are also important, they aren't of the same caliber as the Tipiṭaka."

All the best,

Geoff
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:
tiltbillings wrote:
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.
As in the Sujin Boriharnwanaket "method."
Absolutely.
Ok, so earlier when you mentioned about vipassana techniques, you meant the way Sujin Boriharnwanaket teaches? You accept that Suppabuddha was enlightened while listening to the Buddha, who he happened to come across (due to past kamma) while he was out looking for food, but he wasn't a) understanding realities..OR b) he did something that was unnatural or C) he had a special different method ?
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:
tiltbillings wrote:One example might be the technique of "no technique", where "developing understanding of realities" au natural looks to the abhidhamma for its validation.
As in the Sujin Boriharnwanaket "method."
Ok, so earlier when you mentioned about vipassana techniques, you meant the way Sujin Boriharnwanaket teaches? You accept that Suppabuddha was enlightened while listening to the Buddha, who he happened to come across (due to past kamma) while he was out looking for food, but he wasn't a) understanding realities..OR b) he did something that was unnatural or C) he had a special different method ?
a) Understanding realities - I dont get
b) Doing something unnatural - I dont understand
c) Ditto

The Buddha gave a progressive teaching to Suppabuddha who gave full attention to the words of the Buddha. Suppabuddha's mind contemplated the benefit of virtue/generosity -the bliss of heaven - the danger of sensual desire - the bliss of renunciation, resulting in Suppabuddha's mind acquiring samadhi at which point the Buddha gave the teaching of the four noble truths - which Suppabuddha due to his mind being joyful & happy along with his body being calmed/tranquilised was able to penetrate.
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:


a) Understanding realities - I dont get
b) Doing something unnatural - I dont understand
c) Ditto

The Buddha gave a progressive teaching to Suppabuddha who gave full attention to the words of the Buddha. Suppabuddha's mind contemplated the benefit of virtue/generosity -the bliss of heaven - the danger of sensual desire - the bliss of renunciation, resulting in Suppabuddha's mind acquiring samadhi at which point the Buddha gave the teaching of the four noble truths - which Suppabuddha due to his mind being joyful & happy along with his body being calmed/tranquilised was able to penetrate.
Let's consider the samadhi: what type was, was was it's character?
Think of all the suttas where the Buddha explained about knowing the 6 senses or the khandas, wasn't suppabuddha understanding aspects of them and aren't these elements realities?
User avatar
phil
Posts: 874
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:08 am
Location: Tokyo

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by phil »

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.

How is seeing consciousness different when noting "seeing, seeing" during a mahasi retreat for example and durong daily life? I tend to believe that proper understanding ofthe ayatanas for example can develop in an unforced way in daily life...noting "seeing, seeing" seems a very questionable practice though I knpw it is said to be for "beginners" as defined by some kind of standard....

And what about the words "developing understanding of realities " is not in line with the tipitika?
Kammalakkhano , bhikkhave, bālo, kammalakkhano pandito, apadānasobhanī paññāti
(The fool is characterized by his/her actions/the wise one is characterized by his/her actions/Wisdom shines forth in behaviour.)
(AN 3.2 Lakkhana Sutta)
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 Geoff,
Ñāṇa wrote:
mikenz66 wrote: In most cases disagreements don't seem to me to have much to do with alleged inconsistencies between Sutta and Commentary.
Issues of inconsistencies and dubious interpretations present in the commentarial literature have been noted by various teachers, , translators, and scholars, largely based on quite reasonable readings of the different historical strata of texts.
But there is still plenty of middle ground between the two extremes of dogmatic allegiance to every commentarial word an letter on the one hand, and dogmatic wholesale rejection of all commentary on the other. ...
I don't disagree with this. I think that it is useful to consider various analyses, and I'm thankful that we have people here who can explain various takes on the Tipitaka and Commentary to those of us who have not yet got to grips with the entire tradition.

However, a lot of posts I see complaining about "commentaries" or "commentarial methods" really seem to have nothing to do with the commentaries themselves, or detailed analyses of subtleties of interpretation (such as those of Ven Nanananda).
They seem to be more to do with perceptions of the teachings of the various teachers who (no doubt sincerely) claim to be teaching entirely consistently with commentary+sutta or sutta alone. As we can see from the discussion here, various teachers who take the Commentaries seriously (such as Khun Sujin and Mahaisi Sayadaw) have come to rather different conclusions about how to instruct their students.

: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 »

robertk wrote:
legolas wrote:


a) Understanding realities - I dont get
b) Doing something unnatural - I dont understand
c) Ditto

The Buddha gave a progressive teaching to Suppabuddha who gave full attention to the words of the Buddha. Suppabuddha's mind contemplated the benefit of virtue/generosity -the bliss of heaven - the danger of sensual desire - the bliss of renunciation, resulting in Suppabuddha's mind acquiring samadhi at which point the Buddha gave the teaching of the four noble truths - which Suppabuddha due to his mind being joyful & happy along with his body being calmed/tranquilised was able to penetrate.
Let's consider the samadhi: what type was, was was it's character?
Think of all the suttas where the Buddha explained about knowing the 6 senses or the khandas, wasn't suppabuddha understanding aspects of them and aren't these elements realities?
I think we might be getting ahead of ourselves. "Realities" do not make an appearance in this sutta or other suttas as far as I am aware. This is a classification which has been drafted onto the suttas.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by daverupa »

Commentarial authors are perhaps closer to Pali idiom and a more natural use of that language (yes? no?) than modern folk, and perhaps therefore able to explicate the Suttas with otherwise lost detail, but my approach now is to see the Commentaries as comparable to modern monastics: wrong in some ways, or perhaps with a turn of phrase that isn't skillful for me, and so on.

One question, hopefully germane to this thread: are the Commentaries coextensive with the abhidhamma? I thought the abhidhamma was an earlier textual period, and that the Commentarial authors had access to it but were writing after the Tipitaka was closed. Maybe the Commentaries are a larger corpus of which the abhidhamma is only a part? In any case, I can clarify my own concerns as being to do with the abhidhamma, and the Commentaries then only insofar as they rely on abhidhammic material.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
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 Dave,

The Abhidhamma Pitaka is part of the Pali Canon, first formalised at the Third Council. Tradition has it that it was taught by the Buddha to his mother in Tusita Heaven.

There are many commentaries based on the Abhidhamma. The most common one used by Abhidhamma practitioners nowadays seems to be Abhidhammattha Sangaha by Acariya Anuruddha, translated by Ven. Narada as "A Manual of Abhidhamma" and fleshed out further by Bhikkhu Bodhi to form "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma".

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
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 Retro,

I don't think that the Abhidhammattha Sangaha can really be classified as a commentary. It seems to me to be a brief quick-reference guide, written at least 1500 years after the Buddha, which summarises key points from the Abhidhamma and its Commentaries.

There are extensive ancient commentaries in Pali:
http://www.palitext.com/subpages/comm.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
but, as with the sutta commentaries, the vast majority are not available in English.

Perhaps someone with better historical knowledge than me can explain whether the Adhidhamma Commentaries were assembled by Ven. Buddhaghosa, or by someone else.

:anjali:
Mike
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 Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:I don't think that the Abhidhammattha Sangaha can really be classified as a commentary.
I don't see why not.

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
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 »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:I don't think that the Abhidhammattha Sangaha can really be classified as a commentary.
I don't see why not.
I already explained that... :tongue:

The AS is a quick summary (not a detailed analysis, which is what I'd expect from a commentary, based on reading a few sutta commentaries) of a huge amount of material (some from the Abhidhamma and some from ancient commentaries). That material is vast: 8 volumes of Abhidhamma, 8 volumes of commentary, each volume running into hundreds or thousands of pages. In itself the AS is dozens of pages, and even with the material that Bhikkhu Bodhi (and others) has added by way of explanation, it's still just a summary.

My point is that I think that it would be misleading to base one's impression of what is contained in "The Commentaries" on that slim volume.

:anjali:
Mike
Post Reply