Authority of the Sub-Commentaries

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
Post Reply
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22382
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Authority of the Sub-Commentaries

Post by Ceisiwr »

Classical Theravāda recognises 4 levels of authority, namely:

1. Sutta: "the well-said" = the three baskets of the Tipiṭaka.
2. Suttānuloma: "the according with the well-said" = a direct inference from the Tipiṭaka.
3. Atthakathā: "treatise on the meaning" = an ancient commentary.
4. Attanomati: "personal opinion" = the expositions and views of later generations of teachers.

My question is, where do the ṭīkā fall into this scheme? They certainly aren't ancient commentary (Atthakathā) since many were written around the 11th Century, so how much can a Classical Theravādin diverge from said texts?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Gwi
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2021 3:33 am
Location: Indonesia

Re: Authority of the Sub-Commentaries

Post by Gwi »

Ceisiwr wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 8:38 pm Classical Theravāda recognises 4 levels of authority, namely:

1. Sutta: "the well-said" = the three baskets of the Tipiṭaka.
2. Suttānuloma: "the according with the well-said" = a direct inference from the Tipiṭaka.
3. Atthakathā: "treatise on the meaning" = an ancient commentary.
4. Attanomati: "personal opinion" = the expositions and views of later generations of teachers.

My question is, where do the ṭīkā fall into this scheme? They certainly aren't ancient commentary (Atthakathā) since many were written around the 11th Century, so how much can a Classical Theravādin diverge from said texts?

ṭīkā is Attanomati.

Attanomati:
1. Visuddhimaggå (the best for learning meditation)
2. The Great Chronicle of Buddhas
(The story of The Buddhå and His disciples
Is neatly arranged and so perfect)
3. Abhidhammattasanggahå
(Very suitable for people who doubt Abhidhammå)
4. ṭīkā, etc.


* Attanomati only for the works of ancient
Bhikkhus (not todays).
Bahagia Tidak Harus Selalu Bersama

Dhammapadå 370
"Tinggalkanlah 5 (belantara) dan patahkan 5 (belenggu rendah),
Serta kembangkan 5 potensi (4 iddhipādā + 1 ussoḷhi).
Bhikkhu yang telah menaklukkan 5 kungkungan (belenggu tinggi),
Lebih layak disebut 'orang yang telah mengarungi air baih (saṃsārå)'."
dharmacorps
Posts: 2298
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 7:33 pm

Re: Authority of the Sub-Commentaries

Post by dharmacorps »

Any commentary or subcommentary regardless of when it was written and who it was written by has to be viewed with a critical lens. The "authority" issue is a political one, not one of practical dhamma.
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: Authority of the Sub-Commentaries

Post by Ontheway »

I think I can accept Pali Tipitaka along with Atthakatha. Other than that, especially those from Myanmar at much later stage, I might need to further investigate first.

But Visuddhi Magga is a bit different. Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera wrote it as a "resume" for Mahaviharavasins in order to gain the permission to translate the Ancient Atthakatha left by Arahant Mahinda Thera and other Arahants, from Sinhalese back to Pali language (Originally, Visuddhi Magga wasn't intended for laymen or laywomen though.)

And those great elders (Mahaviharavasins) accepted it after checking and scrutinizing the three copies of Visuddhi Magga. Since the Mahaviharavasins are the keeper of true Pali Tipitaka in Sri Lanka since Third Council, and they accepted Visuddhi Magga as correct interpretation of Buddha's teachings (they even praised Buddhaghosa Thera as if he might be the Maitreya Bodhisatta). So I will accept Visuddhi Magga as authority within the range of Atthakatha.

So far, Visuddhimagga is really helpful to me. :reading: :anjali: :buddha1:
Last edited by Ontheway on Fri Sep 24, 2021 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Authority of the Sub-Commentaries

Post by Coëmgenu »

AFAIK, subcommentaries are to be critically viewed, but only rejected in extreme instances. The Mahāṭṭhakathā ("Great Commentary") preserved by the Theravādin sect is not so in classical Theravāda. Please correct me if I'm wrong. It's "the" commentary, pronouncing "the" like "thee" for rhetorical effect. Without it, you are a heterodox Theravādin.

Regardless if we agree with it, the Mahāṭṭhakathā is one of the older pieces of Buddhist exegesis on the buddhavacana, along with other documents like the Mahāvibhāṣa, the other "Great Commentary" still preserved. It can't be dismissed frivolously, even if you aren't Theravādin. Keep in mind, when I say "older pieces of Buddhist exegesis," I am aware that there are even older, like the root Abhidhamma texts and the Paṭisambhidāmagga.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Authority of the Sub-Commentaries

Post by mikenz66 »

Ontheway wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 7:37 pm But Visuddhi Magga is a bit different. Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera wrote it as a "resume" for Mahaviharavasins in order to gain the permission to translate the Ancient Atthakatha left by Arahant Mahinda Thera and other Arahants, from Sinhalese back to Pali language ...
The status of the Visuddhimagga is interesting. Clearly it can't be classified as a "commentary" in the sense of the commentaries on the Nikayas. On the other hand, when he wrote it, Ven Buddhaghosa had obviously studied the Sinhalese commentary, and quotes from them extensively, giving us both a summary of the main points of the commentaries that he assembled for the Nikayas, and, tantalisingly, material that I don't think made it into those commentaries, and was subsequently lost.

The first talk in Ven Sujato's recent series on the Visuddhimagga discusses this in detail: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/se ... hosa/21520
but most of the detail is actually in Ven Nanamoli's Introduction.

:heart:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Authority of the Sub-Commentaries

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Ceisiwr wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 8:38 pm Classical Theravāda recognises 4 levels of authority, namely:

1. Sutta: "the well-said" = the three baskets of the Tipiṭaka.
2. Suttānuloma: "the according with the well-said" = a direct inference from the Tipiṭaka.
3. Atthakathā: "treatise on the meaning" = an ancient commentary.
4. Attanomati: "personal opinion" = the expositions and views of later generations of teachers.

My question is, where do the ṭīkā fall into this scheme? They certainly aren't ancient commentary (Atthakathā) since many were written around the 11th Century, so how much can a Classical Theravādin diverge from said texts?
If you want to get to the root of this, you might need to let go of the "definitions" on the right of the equals signs. Mostly because much of what is portrayed as "views of later generations" (#4) is actually just a way of "according with the Sutta" (#2) that enthusiasts of #3 don't want to grant that level of credence to, because they prefer #3's expositions and prefer to grant it an intellectual monopoly.

As alluded to by someone else above, this is sectarian politics, disconnected from the Buddha's teaching. The Buddha never taught this schema as the priority of doctrine, and it appears to be an attempt by the tradition to position the commentaries as being lower than Buddhavacana, but higher than what anyone else might happen to think of the Suttas.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"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
samseva
Posts: 3045
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Authority of the Sub-Commentaries

Post by samseva »

Ceisiwr wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 8:38 pm Classical Theravāda recognises 4 levels of authority, namely:

1. Sutta: "the well-said" = the three baskets of the Tipiṭaka.
2. Suttānuloma: "the according with the well-said" = a direct inference from the Tipiṭaka.
3. Atthakathā: "treatise on the meaning" = an ancient commentary.
4. Attanomati: "personal opinion" = the expositions and views of later generations of teachers.

My question is, where do the ṭīkā fall into this scheme? They certainly aren't ancient commentary (Atthakathā) since many were written around the 11th Century, so how much can a Classical Theravādin diverge from said texts?
The classification of authority is made by the Atthakathā. Since, like you said, Ṭīkā would not have existed at the time of the Atthakathā—according to that Atthakathā classification—Ṭīkā would essentially be part of Attanomati.

In the sense of Ṭīkā being at a similar level as Atthakathā—or between Atthakathā and Attanomati—there would be no Atthakathā justification for Ṭīkā to be considered separate from Attanomati.
User avatar
samseva
Posts: 3045
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Authority of the Sub-Commentaries

Post by samseva »

I don't really see the issue, however, with Ṭīkā being Attanomati, since you seem to correctly define "attanomati" as "the expositions and views of later generations of teachers" (although I don't know what you consider a "later-generation teacher").
(d) Attanomati: this is a reference to the ‘own views’ i.e. considered opinions held by bhikkhu-elders after following the principles contained in the Sutta, Suttanuloma and Ācariyavāda. Attanomate is also known as Theravāda, the doctrines upheld traditionally by bhikkhu-elders. Thus these four Vinayas are Sutta, Suttānuloma, Ācariyavāda and Attanomati, should be noted.
Ven. Mingun Sayādaw (bhikkhu who answered Vinaya questions at the 6th Council—and who had memorized the Tipiṭaka/Tipiṭakadhāra)

As above, with Ven. Mingun Sayādaw's description, it's important to note that although the technical translation of the Pāḷi word "attanomati" is "own views"... this merely reflects the choice of word of the Atthakathā Commentators.

Attanomati is not defined as being "personal views," but as both you and Ven. Mingun Sayādaw say, it is: "i.e. considered opinions held by bhikkhu-elders after following the principles contained in the Sutta, Suttanuloma and Ācariyavāda."
Post Reply