OK, I missed that. I focused on him saying that he had not read any Commentaries. Yes, the Visuddhimagga is not a Canonical Commentary, i.e. it is not in the Tipiṭaka. It is post-Canonical, as is the much later Abhidhammatthasangaha, Comprehensive Manual of the Abhidhamma, and more recent commentaries... However, since it was written by Buddhaghosa while he was translating the Canonical Commentaries, and contains many quotes from the Commentaries, it's almost certainly contains the majority of the Canonical Commentary that is readily available to those who are not Pali experts.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:30 am Greetings Mike,
No need to apologize and I'm sure BrokenBones is cool enough to not require one either. You were clearly acting in good faith.
Metta,BrokenBones wrote:I don't think the visuddhimagga is included in the official commentaries... I've read it... it didn't connect with me... I move on...
Paul.
Going back to the OP, and perhaps taking a slightly different tack, it is perhaps relevant that some of the prominent monastic teachers, notably Vens. Thanissaro and Amaro, have stated in various talks (sorry, I did not keep the references) that they didn't do much sutta study when they were training in Thailand with their respective teachers (Ajahns Fuang and Chah). When they returned to the West, some of their well-read Western students asked them questions about Buddhist texts, and how what they were teaching was related to the texts. So they were forced to do some reading to answer those questions. This is not necessarily a negative thing. They brought back from Thailand wisdom gained from their training. However, the explanations of suttas are their own. Perhaps this goes some way towards explaining the wide diversity of interpretations in the West.
Mike