Trustworthiness of Early Commentaries

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
User avatar
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Trustworthiness of Early Commentaries

Post by Eko Care »

Trustworthiness.jpg
Do you have any other points or corrections ?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22398
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Trustworthiness of Early Commentaries

Post by Ceisiwr »

Eko Care wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 7:38 pm Trustworthiness.jpg

Do you have any other points or corrections ?
Ven. Anālayo points out that come of the southern commentary can actually be found in some northern sutras, as part of the text. This shows that the commentaries likely go back to the earliest time. I have huge respect for them, even though I part company on a few points.
“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
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Re: Trustworthiness of Early Commentaries

Post by Eko Care »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 8:10 pm Ven. Anālayo points out that come of the southern commentary can actually be found in some northern sutras, as part of the text. This shows that the commentaries likely go back to the earliest time.
Chronologists like Norman said it before ven. Analayo.
Norman, K.R. Pali Literature (1983) :

there is clear evidence that some parts of the commentaries are very old, perhaps even going back to the time of the Buddha, because they afford parallels with texts which are regarded as canonical by other sects, and must therefore pre-date the schisms between the sects.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22398
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Trustworthiness of Early Commentaries

Post by Ceisiwr »

Eko Care wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 8:41 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 8:10 pm Ven. Anālayo points out that come of the southern commentary can actually be found in some northern sutras, as part of the text. This shows that the commentaries likely go back to the earliest time.
Chronologists like Norman said it before ven. Analayo.
Norman, K.R. Pali Literature (1983) :

there is clear evidence that some parts of the commentaries are very old, perhaps even going back to the time of the Buddha, because they afford parallels with texts which are regarded as canonical by other sects, and must therefore pre-date the schisms between the sects.
Interesting. That’s news to me.
“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
Dhammanando
Posts: 6492
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Trustworthiness of Early Commentaries

Post by Dhammanando »

Eko Care wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 7:38 pm ... or corrections ?
1. There are several questions on which a philologist qua philologist wouldn't take any position at all. That is, whatever his private convictions may be, so long as he's wearing his philologist's hat you're unlikely to find him opining on such things as supernormal powers, patisambhidās, paths and fruits.

2. Since it's an indisputable fact that the commentators had named texts available to them that are no longer extant, the "Having more ancient materials in hand..." clause ought to be "high"for all three.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
TRobinson465
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: Trustworthiness of Early Commentaries

Post by TRobinson465 »

Eko Care wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 7:38 pm Trustworthiness.jpg

Do you have any other points or corrections ?
Not that I dont agree with this assessment. But in the Kalama Sutta doesnt the Buddha say not to believe in something just cuz its probable?
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
GnosticMind
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2021 3:16 pm

Re: Trustworthiness of Early Commentaries

Post by GnosticMind »

Ven. Dhammanando, I always appreciate your posts -- you know your stuff.

I always learn something from your textual analysis and philology.

You are skillful and learned.

I'd like to ask you a general question regarding Sutta translation --

If I may ask, what is your opinion of the Pali Text Society translations? I first read them when I was a regular visitor to The London Buddhist Vihara in Chiswick, some 32 years ago, and I appreciated them then -- recently a scholar-friend gifted me his entire collection of nearly all the early texts and Suttas ( except for Vinaya Pitaka and Abhidhamma) and when I read the translations again, for the first time in decades, they looked very Georgian, Victorian or Edwardian, even Symbolist -- echoes of Romanticism, William Blake, Coleridge, Keats, Shelley and Tennyson, which ( to me ) don't really stand the test of time and aren't entirely accurate or apposite since the translators seem very aware of what was probably at the time, a theosophy-orientalist-Steiner-Symbolist-Vorticist-Oxbridge-Graeco-Roman-Stoic-Neo-Platonist oriented reader base -- I'd be interested to hear your well-informed view.

And the wider question is, if I may ask your view, can Buddhist scholars and translators translate texts without at least partially skewing it to match the ambience or zeitgeist of the epoch in which the scholar lives and breathes and thinks?

Is that possible?

I don't speak or write Pali -- I know you do -- that is why I ask.
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Trustworthiness of Early Commentaries

Post by Pulsar »

Eko Care Your chart gives high grades for all factors to classical Theravada? I tend to disagree with this
chart. Do you know the beginning date for Classical Theravada? According to Andre Bareau, there were 18 schools known perhaps 200 years after Buddha passed away. It is a very fine text called The Buddhist schools of the small vehicle. According to him, no one can pin point exactly when Theravada began. I tried to find info on Theravada there, at one point he seems to point to Vibajjavadins as the originators... apparently that group opposed some doctrinal points accepted by others? surely they can't be the Theravadins. Don't Theravadins accept the Tripitaka?
He also writes Modern scholars have studied this problem to death, and all of them after years of study,
fail to offer an answer to the question "How Theravada Began?"
Do you know when Theravada began? Or is Theravada something different from Classical Theravada?
Regards :candle:
Last edited by Pulsar on Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Trustworthiness of Early Commentaries

Post by Pulsar »

GnosticMind wrote
can Buddhist scholars and translators translate texts without at least partially skewing it to match the ambience or zeitgeist of the epoch in which the scholar lives and breathes and thinks?
I often wonder about this too. Recently I was involved with a group of scholars that dealt with Chinese translation. Many interesting points came up during that discussion. It appears when it came to translations of the Indian texts (Sanskrit) to Chinese, (esp in relation to DO) the Chinese had a better grasp of the material. The reason being the Chinese and Tibetans had a meditative tradition, whereas the Theravadins did not.
Of course the Theravadins may have scored in other areas. Chinese have the advantage of a huge alphabet, but then sometimes one letter can mean many things. When it is so "who decides?"
These are all issues involving translations. In fact our in-house Chinese scholar Coemegnu has mentioned this a few times. On top of this some scholars agree that the meaning of some ancient Pali or Chinese words may not be exactly what we think them to be today.
This is why I think one scholar wrote without right meditation one cannot understand the Dhamma.
Insight tend to correct all the errors in translations. But how many have the time to seriously
engage in the 8-fold path?

Regarding the meditative traditions being absent from Theravada, both Ven. Sujatho and Ver. Analayo agree, not that I care for Analayo's insights. He is a good scholar but he is not a serious meditator. Metta meditation? yes, 5hrs/day, Analayo admits this somewhere.
Both BB and Analayo suffer from headaches (migraine) that interfere with serious Samma Sati or Samma Samadhi. So whatever opinions they offer regarding these are purely scholarly.
To answer your question ..."How can the modern translator succeed?" He or she can only succeed if they do not resort to intellectual methods. Remember
  • "Dhamma is timeless"
For that we need scholars who are familiar with Samma Sati and Samma Samdhi. This is also why opinions regarding Jhana vary so much, to the point of driving one nuts.
Monks like Ven. Henepola Gunaratne and Ajahn Sona agree that it is the only the 4 jhanas that matter to the path, and they are not the only monks.
I strongly believe that "Dhamma is Timeless" once one opens the eyes to be able to see the Dhamma, errors of translation correct themselves.
Best :candle:
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22398
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Trustworthiness of Early Commentaries

Post by Ceisiwr »

Pulsar wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:27 pm
The reason being the Chinese and Tibetans had a meditative tradition, whereas the Theravadins did not.
This is nonsense. Pure rhetoric.
“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.”
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Trustworthiness of Early Commentaries

Post by Pulsar »

If it is rhetoric check with Ven Sujatho.
I did not make it up. You can post the question at Sutta Central and tag Ver Sujatho? If he agrees that it is pure rhetoric I shall agree, not because Ceisiwr says so. You once alleged that Buddha was an annihilationist the day before awakening, on my Jhana thread.
How much faith can I have in the things you say.
Regards :candle:
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22398
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Trustworthiness of Early Commentaries

Post by Ceisiwr »

Pulsar wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:38 pm If it is rhetoric check with Ven Sujatho.
I did not make it up. You can post the question at Sutta Central and tag Ver Sujatho? If he agrees that it is pure rhetoric I shall agree, not because Ceisiwr says so. You once alleged that Buddha was an annihilationist the day before awakening, on my Jhana thread.
How much faith can I have in the things you say.
Regards :candle:
Quid est veritas? Sujato. Even if Ven. Sujato did make the claim I would find it an odd one. Clearly Theravāda had a tradition of meditating monks, as evidenced by the Vimuttimagga and Visuddhimagga. We see it too in more "recent" texts. Yogāvacara's manual (Manual of a Mystic) clearly comes from a monk with a meditative background.
You once alleged that Buddha was an annihilationist the day before awakening, on my Jhana thread.
Yes, because the texts strongly indicate that Āḷāra Kālāma & Uddaka Rāmaputta were. This, however, is off topic.
“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
robertk
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Trustworthiness of Early Commentaries

Post by robertk »

Pulsar wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 8:52 pm Eko Care Your chart gives high grades for all factors to classical Theravada? I tend to disagree with this
chart. Do you know the beginning date for Classical Theravada? According to Andre Bareau, there were 18 schools known perhaps 200 years after Buddha passed away. It is a very fine text called The Buddhist schools of the small vehicle. According to him, no one can pin point exactly when Theravada began. I tried to find info on Theravada there, at one point he seems to point to Vibajjavadins as the originators... apparently that group opposed some doctrinal points accepted by others? surely they can't be the Theravadins. Don't Theravadins accept the Tripitaka?
He also writes Modern scholars have studied this problem to death, and all of them after years of study,
fail to offer an answer to the question "How Theravada Began?"
Do you know when Theravada began? Or is Theravada something different from Classical Theravada?
Regards :candle:

here is some on Theravada from the Dipavamsa which may help . It lists the great monks at the first council and explains why the name Theravada:
Kassapa was the chief propounder of the Dhutanga pre-
cepts according to the doctrine of the Jina; Ananda was
the first of those learned (in the Suttas), wise Upali was
chief in the Vinaya, — 4. Anuruddha in the (supernatu-
ral) visions, Vangisa in promptly comprehending, Punna
among the preachers of the Dhamma, Kumarakassapa
among the students of various tales, — 5. Kaccana in
establishing distinctions, Kotthita in analytical knowledge.
There were, besides, many other great Theras who were v
original depositaries (of Buddha's doctrine). 6. Jy these />^
and other saintly Theras who had fulfilled their duties,
to the number of five hundred, was the collection of the
Dhamma and of the Vinaya made; because it was col-
lected by the Theras, it is called the doctrine of the Theras
(theravada)
. 7. The Bhikkhus composed the collection of
Dhamma and Vinaya by consulting Upali about the Vi-
naya, and by asking the (Thera) called Ananda regarding
the Dhamma. 8. Thera Mahakassapa and the great tea-
cher Anuruddha, Thera Upali of powerful memory, and
the learned Ananda, — 9. as well as many other distin-
guished disciples, who had been praised by the master,
who possessed analytical knowledge, firmness, the six
(supernatural) faculties and the great (magical) powers,
who had attained the mystic trance proceeding from self-
concentration, who had completely mastered the true faith,
— 10. all these five hundred Theras bore in their minds
the nine-fold doctrine of the Jina, having acquired it from
the best of Buddhas. 11. They who had heard and re-
ceived from Bhagavat himself the whole Dhamma and
Vinaya taught by the Buddha, — 12. they who knew the
Dhamma, who knew the Vinaya, who all were acquainted
with the Agamas, who were unconquerable, immovable,
similar to their master, ever worshipful, — 13. they who
had received the perfect doctrine, first (among religions),
from the first (among teachers), who were Theras and
original depositaries (of the Faith), made this first col-
lection. H
ence this whole doctrine of the Theras [Theravada] is also
called the first (or primitive) doctrine.
1

|
etasmiin sannipatamhi thero Kassapasavhayo
sattbukappo mab&nago, pathavya n' atthi tdtso, |
arahantanam paiicasatam uccinitvaDa Kassapo
varam varain gahetvana akasi dbammasamgahaip. |
panrnain anukampaya sasanam dighak4likam
aksLsi dbammasamirafaam tinnam msls&nain accaye
sampatte catutthc mkse dutiye vassupanayike. |
Sattapannagubadv&re Mligadhanam Giribbaje
5 sattamasehi nitthasi pathamo saingaho ayam. |
etasmim samgabe bbikkhii agganikkhittakA bahft
sabbe pi p&ramippatta lokanathassa sasane. |
dhutavadanam aggo so Kassapo jinas4sane,
bahussutanam Aiiando, vinaye Upalisavhayo, |
dibbacakkhumhi Anuruddko, Vangiso patibhanav^
Punno ca dhammakatbikanam, vicitrakathi Kumarakassapo,
vibhajjanamhi Kaccano, Kotthiko patisambhida,

anne p^ atthi mah&thera agganikkhittaka hahh. |

tehi c' annehi therehi katakiccehi s^dhuhi

pancasatehi therehi dhamniavinayo ca samgito.

therehi katasaingaho theravado 'ti vuccati. | lo

Up&Iim vlnayam pucchitv& dbammam Anandapanditam

akamsu dhammasamgahain vinayan c&pi kevalain. |

jinassa santike gahit& dhammavinay^ ca te ubho

Up&lithero ca Anando saddhamme p^ramigato |

pariyayadesitafi cslpi atho nippariy^yadesitam

nitatthaD c^ eva neyyattbam dipimsii suttakovida. |

aggassa santike aggam gahetva vakyam tathagatam

agganikkhittaka thera aggam akarnsu samgabaip,

ta8m& hi so theravado aggavado ^ti^viuscati. |

yisuddho apagatadoso theravadanam uttamo

pavattittha cirakalam vassanam dasadha dasa 'ti. | 15

Nikkhante pathame vassasate sampatte dutiye sate
mahabhedo aj^yittha theravadanam uttamo. |


Nobody, may a Sa-
mana come or a Brahmana of great learning, skilled in
disputation and hair-splitting, can subvert it; firm it stands
like Sineru. 20. Neither a deity nor Mara nor Brahma
nor any earthly beings can find in it even the smallest ill-
spoken sentence. 21. Thus the collection of the Dhamma
and of the Vinaya is complete in every part, well arran-
ged and well protected by the omniscience of the Teacher.
22. 23. And those five hundred Theras, chief among whom
was Mahakassapa, as they knew the doubts of the people,
composed the imperishable collection of the Vinaya and of
the Dhamma, which is an incarnation of the Faith like the
highest Buddha, the collection of the Dhamma. 24. The
doctrine of the Theras, which is founded on true reasons,
which is free from heresies, full of true meaning, and
supports the true faith, will exist as long as the Faith.

25. As long as holy disciples of Buddha's faith exist, all
of them will recognize the first Council of the Dhamma.

26. The five hundred pre-eminent Theras, noble by birth (?),
laid the first firm, original, fundamental base (of the
Faith).

Here ends the Council of Mahakassapa.
form
Posts: 3471
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: Trustworthiness of Early Commentaries

Post by form »

A language by itself will have limitations. Let alone translation. Everyone of us has own individual language.
User avatar
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Re: Trustworthiness of Early Commentaries

Post by Eko Care »

TRobinson465 wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:05 am Not that I dont agree with this assessment. But in the Kalama Sutta doesnt the Buddha say not to believe in something just cuz its probable?
  • Believing is done after studying and investigating the deep and ultimate Dhammas of a particular doctrine.
  • Before studying and investigating, we need to choose doctrines that are highly probable to be true.
  • We don't have time to study each an every doctrine/teaching available.
  • We can only study a few of them in this lifetime.
  • So we should start studying from the most probable one.
  • If someone can't be satisfied after learning and testing it for a considerable period of time, then he will move to the next most probable one.
  • And the theories of the most probable doctrine can hardly be defeated by other doctrines (without very strong evidence), if subconscious knows the probabilities.
  • This is where the probability comes in.
(* These probabilities are about authenticity. There may be some innate wise people who can distinguish the truth and fallacy just by intuition or mere investigation even without the aid of probabilities.)
Pulsar wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 8:52 pm Do you know the beginning date for Classical Theravada?
Do you know when Theravada began? Or is Theravada something different from Classical Theravada?
We don't need to know about the 'exact beginning' to assign above probabilities.
Written dates of the Tipitaka and Atthakatha are enough to decide probabilities.

Nowadays Classical Theravada means Mahavihara Theravada. It is the convention.
We don't need to define the exact or original meaning of the term, because it is just a name used today to distinguish Mahavihara doctrine from others. (You can take it as Mahavihara Vada if you like)

Regards.
Post Reply