My thinking has been getting stuck in a rut, so I was hoping I could use some of you as mirrors. John Bullitt at Access to Insight, discussing the commentaries, says:
And what of their first-hand understanding of Dhamma: if the commentators were scholars first and foremost, would they have had sufficient meditative experience to write with authority on the subject of meditation? This is more problematic. Perhaps commentators like Buddhaghosa had enough time (and accumulated merit) both for mastering meditation and for their impressive scholarly pursuits; we will never know. But it is noteworthy that the most significant discrepancies between the Canon and its commentaries concern meditation — in particular, the relationship between concentration meditation and insight.4 The question of the authority of the post-canonical texts thus remains a point of controversy within Theravada Buddhism.
Now, as I've mentioned before, I'm both a lover of Buddhaghosa, and have doubts about doing vipassana. I'm not particularly interested in engaging a debate around these topics, but I was wondering if people would be able to share their thoughts on the part of Bullitt's quote that I've emphasised? I don't want scholarly treatises, but if people have feelings about this - mild or strong - I'd really appreciate them sharing to help me analyse my own views.
John's bit is here - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... atthakatha - which is "Beyond the Tipitaka: A Field Guide to Post-canonical Pali Literature"