Visuddhimagga a mistake?

[Goedert]

Hi Goedert ,

thank you for inspiration. I asked that Monk and that clarified a lot. I was wrong, he had not said such things.
It was a misunderstanding.

His answer was like: "The VM is not all bad by any means and there is much to learn from it outside of the part concerning the meditation instructions."

Be well,
Mirco

Hello friend mirco.

Yeah, the texts sometimes need complementation of oral instructions. Only a small number of people has the good faculties to understand the texts all alone. Thanks for spending your time asking the monk.

[mirco]

Dear Goedert,

now I got the direc answer from that monk, first was fram an assistant:

I didn't say that Buddhagosa realized that he made mistakes. What I said was
after about 15 years some other monks had had studied the original scriptures
and had found some mistakes that didn't agree with the suttas but the Vissudhi
Magga had become too popular to stop. Hope this clears this up for you.

That cleared up things for me.

Metta, always,
Mirco

[pilgrim]

I've often come across the position that if something is in the VM and not in the suttas, then the VM should be rejected. I feel that is unnecessary. The VM is an elaboration and extrapolation of the Buddha's teachings. For e.g, the 2 0r 3 techniques of metta meditation is commonly practised throughout the Theravada world without controversy. But we forget that all these metta meditation techniques originates from the VM. You won't find instruction for metta meditation in the suttas.

[lojong1]

For e.g, the 2 0r 3 techniques of metta meditation is commonly practised throughout the Theravada world without controversy.

You won't find instruction for metta meditation in the suttas.

Has it crossed anyone else's mind that there might have been a really really good reason for this [intentional] omission?

[mikenz66]

I've often come across the position that if something is in the VM and not in the suttas, then the VM should be rejected. I feel that is unnecessary...

Sure. Of course it's sensible to think carefully about any instructions, but I see no obvious reason to think that the interpretations of a particular modern teacher are more reliable than the interpretations of other modern or ancient teachers...

Mike

[mikenz66]

Hi mirco,

Is there some historical evidence for this statement?

Mike

Dear Goedert,

now I got the direc answer from that monk, first was fram an assistant:

Greetings Mirco,

I didn't say that Buddhagosa realized that he made mistakes. What I said was
after about 15 years some other monks had had studied the original scriptures
and had found some mistakes that didn't agree with the suttas but the Vissudhi
Magga had become too popular to stop. Hope this clears this up for you.

That cleared up things for me.

Metta, always,
Mirco

[Paññāsikhara]

I've often come across the position that if something is in the VM and not in the suttas, then the VM should be rejected.

What if that "thing" is something that leads to the end of afflictions, and ultimate liberation? Would you still reject it?

[tiltbillings]

Dear Goedert,

now I got the direc answer from that monk, first was fram an assistant:

Greetings Mirco,

I didn't say that Buddhagosa realized that he made mistakes. What I said was
after about 15 years some other monks had had studied the original scriptures
and had found some mistakes that didn't agree with the suttas but the Vissudhi
Magga had become too popular to stop. Hope this clears this up for you.

That cleared up things for me.

Metta, always,
Mirco

But certainly not for me. I would like to see the historical evidence to support this. Point me to an historical study that supports this. As it stands, the above statement from "that monk" is not credible.

[Goedert]

I've often come across the position that if something is in the VM and not in the suttas, then the VM should be rejected. I feel that is unnecessary...

Sure. Of course it's sensible to think carefully about any instructions, but I see no obvious reason to think that the interpretations of a particular modern teacher are more reliable than the interpretations of other modern or ancient teachers...

Mike

Need to second that.

[legolas]

People take the Buddha and his teachings in the sutta/vinaya as authorative.
People take Buddhagosa and his work as authorative.
People take the view that Buddhagosa's works "explained" or amplified the Buddha's words.
People accept sutta/vinaya and Buddhagosa's teachings and find no discrepancy.
People find discrepancies between the Buddha and Buddhagosa and rely on Buddhagosa's interpretation.
People totally reject Buddhagosa's works because of inconsistancies with the sutta/vinaya.
People accept the sutta and vinaya and only accept Buddhagosa's works when they are totally in line with the sutta/vinaya

It would be interesting to do a poll on peoples views about this. I am sure there are many other views on Buddha/Buddhagosa and my list above could be extended.

[mirco]

"What I said was after about 15 years some other monks had had
studied the original scriptures and had found some mistakes that didn't agree with
the suttas but the Vissudhi Magga had become too popular to stop

Is there some historical evidence for this statement?

Hi Mike,

I don't know. But you could find it out though following the training advices in the Suttas precisely,
gain insight and compare the Suttas and the VM with your insight and wisdom.


Metta, always, Mirco

[tiltbillings]

I don't know. But you could find it out though following the training advices in the Suttas precisely,
gain insight and compare the Suttas and the VM with your insight and wisdom.

The first sentence reads correctly. Based upon my 40+ years of experience and those of teachers who have worked directly with both, I find this sort of wholesale rejection of the VM unwarranted. And I find Theravadin teachers who, in regard to other Theravadin teachers, take essentially what boils down to a "I've-got-it-right,-everyone-else-is-wrong" stance worth turning one's back to. There are better teachers out there.

[mikenz66]

"What I said was after about 15 years some other monks had had
studied the original scriptures and had found some mistakes that didn't agree with
the suttas but the Vissudhi Magga had become too popular to stop

Is there some historical evidence for this statement?

Hi Mike,

I don't know. But you could find it out though following the training advices in the Suttas precisely,
gain insight and compare the Suttas and the VM with your insight and wisdom.

Metta, always, Mirco

This is, of course, what we are all trying to do...

However, it hardly seems relevant to my question about historical evidence for the actions of monks 15 years after the publication of the Visuddhimagga.

Mike

[legolas]

I don't know. But you could find it out though following the training advices in the Suttas precisely,
gain insight and compare the Suttas and the VM with your insight and wisdom.

The first sentence reads correctly. Based upon my 40+ years of experience and those of teachers who have worked directly with both, I find this sort of wholesale rejection of the VM unwarranted. And I find Theravadin teachers who, in regard to other Theravadin teachers, take essentially what boils down to a "I've-got-it-right,-everyone-else-is-wrong" stance worth turning one's back to. There are better teachers out there.

Obviously we all have our own opinions of what is warranted and what is not. I quite like teachers who are prepared to go back to the original source and not put faith into lesser works. ( Before anybody starts shouting, the VM has to be considered a lesser work, even if you agree with every word it says.) After all it is "Buddhism" and not Buddhaghosa-ism.

[tiltbillings]

I don't know. But you could find it out though following the training advices in the Suttas precisely,
gain insight and compare the Suttas and the VM with your insight and wisdom.

The first sentence reads correctly. Based upon my 40+ years of experience and those of teachers who have worked directly with both, I find this sort of wholesale rejection of the VM unwarranted. And I find Theravadin teachers who, in regard to other Theravadin teachers, take essentially what boils down to a "I've-got-it-right,-everyone-else-is-wrong" stance worth turning one's back to. There are better teachers out there.

Obviously we all have our own opinions of what is warranted and what is not. I quite like teachers who are prepared to go back to the original source and not put faith into lesser works. ( Before anybody starts shouting, the VM has to be considered a lesser work, even if you agree with every word it says.) After all it is "Buddhism" and not Buddhaghosa-ism.

It is a tricky question. I would not say that the VM is above criticism, but I would say that that the VM is a legitimate and efficacious path of practice.