Video To Justify The Existence Of The Commentaries

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
bksubhuti
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 3:17 pm

Re: Video To Justify The Existence Of The Commentaries

Post by bksubhuti »

Metta,
Paul. :)
Paul,
This is a Classical Theravada subgroup.
Going to a Christian discussion group and preaching that God was not a creator and Jesus was not the son would qualify you as a troll for that particular group.
Think about what group you are commenting on and what you are saying and if it is appropriate.

Here, in this group, we preach to our own Classical Theravada Choir.

If you wish to comment on this video and debate the validity of the commentaries, you should post to the general Dhamma Discussion Group and then place your anti-commentary comments there.

Perhaps a group can be made for you and your friends called, "Commentaries Are Not Real".
I don't care.. I won't go there.
I won't preach to you at such a group.
If I did, I would be a troll because I would be preaching in a group that was designed to speak against the commentaries.
I would be a troll if I went to the Dhammwheel EBT group.

If you would like a mix of opinions, the General Theravada Dhamma Discussion Group would be a proper place to repost this video.
I encourage it. Why? Because I believe it provides a good argument, but I do not want to bother with the general population's opinion.
I can let you do that.
In the General Discussion Group nobody would be a troll, except for a visiting Christian asking us to accept Jesus.
The general discussion group is fair game for any type of opinions related to the Dhamma or its comments.


Mettā includes not disturbing people.
nāññamaññassa dukkhamiccheyya.
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: Video To Justify The Existence Of The Commentaries

Post by Ontheway »

Mettā includes not disturbing people.
nāññamaññassa dukkhamiccheyya.
Ah the Karaniyametta Sutta...

I think people (especially internet buddhists) just used to type "Metta" , "love" , "Maha Karuna, Mudita" to show that they have good qualities. I think it's an internet buddhist writing manner?

During pre-covid time, I visited some Malaysian temples, those people at the temple too, like to use words like "Brothers & Sisters in Dhamma, Mahasadhu, Metta love, etc."...

Maybe it's just me....I think that attitude is quite cringy and I never get used to it...

:rofl:
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Video To Justify The Existence Of The Commentaries

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
bksubhuti wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:27 am
Metta,
Paul. :)
Paul,
This is a Classical Theravada subgroup.
Going to a Christian discussion group and preaching that God was not a creator and Jesus was not the son would qualify you as a troll for that particular group.
Think about what group you are commenting on and what you are saying and if it is appropriate.

Here, in this group, we preach to our own Classical Theravada Choir.

If you wish to comment on this video and debate the validity of the commentaries, you should post to the general Dhamma Discussion Group and then place your anti-commentary comments there.

Perhaps a group can be made for you and your friends called, "Commentaries Are Not Real".
I don't care.. I won't go there.
I won't preach to you at such a group.
If I did, I would be a troll because I would be preaching in a group that was designed to speak against the commentaries.
I would be a troll if I went to the Dhammwheel EBT group.

If you would like a mix of opinions, the General Theravada Dhamma Discussion Group would be a proper place to repost this video.
I encourage it. Why? Because I believe it provides a good argument, but I do not want to bother with the general population's opinion.
I can let you do that.
In the General Discussion Group nobody would be a troll, except for a visiting Christian asking us to accept Jesus.
The general discussion group is fair game for any type of opinions related to the Dhamma or its comments.


Mettā includes not disturbing people.
nāññamaññassa dukkhamiccheyya.
This is a load of contrarian nonsense with no correlation to what was said.

Unless you can state something from the commentaries that confirms the proposition that the Suttas are "containing no practical instructions for meditation" then this is just hot air on your part.

Unfortunately, many people are under the delusion that "techniques" are necessary and required, whereas that type of thinking has no place in the Suttas or the commentaries. Only if someone was craving a rigid technique would they find "no practical instructions for meditation" in the Sutta

Therefore, calm down and desist from the indignant, knee-jerk intolerance. There was nothing against the commentaries in what was said.

Metta includes not being intolerant,
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
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Video To Justify The Existence Of The Commentaries

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Coëmgenu wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 4:40 am IMO, the suttas presume knowledge about the Buddhadharma. They aren't "DIY Dharma handbooks."
This.

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."
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Video To Justify The Existence Of The Commentaries

Post by Pulsar »

This is true ...
Therefore, calm down and desist from the indignant, knee-jerk intolerance. There was nothing against the commentaries in what was said.
Paul did not say anything about the commentaries. All he said was
Yes they do.
that suttas contain plenty of instructions for those who truly want to meditate.
For instance SN 47.42 describes how to carry out 4 establishments of Mindfulness correctly, not wrongly.
Why do we overlook the Buddha?
Why can't the voice of reason be heard on this forum? Does classical Theravada accept commentaries while rejecting the Buddha?
Folks talk about commentaries in the Early Buddhist Forum. As far as I am aware the Forum members there, seem to be very tolerant.
With love :candle:
PS I just took a peek at the guidelines for Classical Theravada, those do not reject the Buddha.
Those say "A forum for members who wish to develop a deeper understanding of The Pali canon and the associated commentaries, which for discussion purposes are both treated as authoritative"
bksubhuti
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 3:17 pm

Re: Video To Justify The Existence Of The Commentaries

Post by bksubhuti »

Yes Paul,
Your comment was fine.. I jumped the gun based on previous other people's responses.
There are instructions, but it is just a framework bullet points for memorization that relies on expansion and details.

Another problem not discussed much is the abbreviated "pe" format of the original sutta Pali and English sutta translations.
Mike Olds tediously expanded all of the suttas from PTS. These are one my website as a menu item. They are not just PTS translations. They are rolled out English Sutta Translations.

I find that the more I read, especially the Samyutta Nikaya (in Pali), one can construct tables of what is mentioned and then be left with
another apparently "boring" "valley of dry bones" as Mrs. Rhys Davids describes the Abhidhamma. But such tables and matrices are actually practice based. The Pa-Auk vipassana method is based on tables and matrices found in the Abhidhamma and described in the vsm and one must contemplate thousands of dhammas (actually millions) for practice. But people cannot imagine that. They read that "after some time" they became one of the enlightened" but they don't know what was really done. Nor do they understand the parami of those monks back then who were so lucky to get the teachings directly from the Buddha.

Even one of my friends who does just one hour of "14 ways" training can be doing a million jhana attainments (per session). This is just samatha too. This is not even getting started with the preliminary vipassana which includes dependent origination as "preliminary". It is difficult to imagine and easily rejected by the weak faithed people who ironically believe they are the ones with strong faith.
Last edited by bksubhuti on Tue Jan 18, 2022 3:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Video To Justify The Existence Of The Commentaries

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
bksubhuti wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 1:25 am Yes Paul,
Your comment was fine.. I jumped the gun based on previous other people's responses.
Appreciated, and thank you.

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."
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: Video To Justify The Existence Of The Commentaries

Post by Ontheway »

I find that the more I read, especially the Samyutta Nikaya (in Pali), one can construct tables of what is mentioned and then be left with
another apparently "boring" "valley of dry bones" as Mrs. Rhys Davids describes the Abhidhamma. But such tables and matrices are actually practice based. The Pa-Auk vipassana method is based on tables and matrices found in the Abhidhamma and described in the vsm and one must contemplate thousands of dhammas (actually millions) for practice. But people cannot imagine that. They read that "after some time" they became one of the enlightened" but they don't know what was really done. Nor do they understand the parami of those monks back then who were so lucky to get the teachings directly from the Buddha.
True. I don't place my bet the academic scholars as they don't really lived by the Buddha's teachings. I will rather listen to true practising monastics.

And those people who constantly rejecting Atthakatha, often produce their own bizarre "Atthakatha" unknowingly. For example, there was this monk called "Dhammavuddho", often said that he will only accept 5 Nikayas and rejecting others. But then he don't even understand the meaning of 5 Nikayas and worse, he said that "Soul" is indeed real. He said that when people died, a Soul or "Linghun" (it's Chinese, his mother tongue) will literally come out from the body (he actively preaching this in his community and also upload YouTube videos). Then acting as Bardo, the "Soul" seeks rebirth here and there by descending into the mother's womb. With this, he distorted the Dhamma.
https://www.dhammavuddho.com/dhammavuddho-and-the-soul/

And as strange as it is, these people decide which teaching to be accepted by consensus. I've seen people on Suttacentral often cherry picking discourses that acceptable to their modern agenda such as modern feminism while rejecting others. To me, the very nature of these modern Sauntrantikas is deceitful and biased. And that's why I don't fancy their ideas.
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
Jack19990101
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:40 am

Re: Video To Justify The Existence Of The Commentaries

Post by Jack19990101 »

Rebirth is two layered.
First layer is that there is never a rebirth nor birth at all. Nor will it be in future. This is when mind directly recognized no self whatsoever.
2nd layer is when a mind still holds a self or self grasping is not fully eroded. In this case, there gonna be rebirth.

They are incompatible, one can have only one of the two. There is no rebirth without a self.
Like a fire lit another candle, a momentary involuntary thought of 'where am I' 'what should I do?', is sufficient.
The self in this case, it is not necessarily considered eternal, it is merely that it is individual.
User avatar
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Re: Video To Justify The Existence Of The Commentaries

Post by Eko Care »

Trustworthiness of Early Commentaries

Image

Do you think you know better than the ancient Sangha?

There are some studies and experiences of many to justify The Existence Of The Commentaries.
TRobinson465 wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 10:17 pm
Eko Care wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 9:18 pm
  • 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.)
Very good point. :thumbsup:
Russell Bowden: Writing down of the Pali Tripitaka at Aloka Vihara in Sri Lanka


Facts vs Theories
As so often in Buddhist Studies, and as the quotations above prove, facts are not always easy to come by. In their place theories thrive and speculations grow. These theories relates, in the main, to critical comments made in the last two centuries of European-based Buddhist Studies by a host of scholars ranging from Rhys Davids, Horner, Geiger through to Malalasekara and Law and more contemporary scholars such as Adikaram, Rahula and Gunawardana.
1. ...
2. ...
..11. ...
Almost all these theories require to be tested and can not be allowed to pass without comment.

... are not based on known facts. ...
... may be related to what they believed ....
Historical sources do not bear this interpretation out. ...
... seems to be far too radical a theory to accept.
Coëmgenu wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:41 am I hope I am not unwarranted in posting this, but the commentaries, or rather, the commentarial tradition of Buddhavacana interpretation, definitely reaches back further than Buddhaghoṣa. This is attested to in the fact that there is an Chinese text believed to be associated with and contemporaneous with the early Nikāya-āgama literary layer of Buddhavacana that is also represented by the Pāli Canon. This text is called Jiětuōdàolùn, 解脫道論, which contains many of the same, though also some different, interpretations and teachings as the Buddhaghoṣa-Visuddhimagga, despite being believed to predate it considerably by the likes of, for instance, Bhikkhu Anālayo. Whether or not Jiětuōdàolùn is authentically representative of the Dhamma or not, I would not be so bold to say, but the two texts clearly stem from a commentarial tradition of interpretation that predates Buddhaghoṣa for certain, and I do not say that with the intent to lessen the monumental contributions of Buddhaghoṣa to Buddhist discourse.
mikenz66 wrote: Sat Nov 05, 2016 3:30 am I've never seen anyone with any detailed knowledge of the history and texts claim that Buddhaghosa wrote the commentaries. All sources I am aware of say that he translated them. The Visuddhimagga is his creation, but it appears to be largely a collection of the commentarial and canonical material.
mikenz66 wrote: Sat Nov 05, 2016 5:05 am Since the Wikipedia article also states "The major commentaries were based on earlier ones, now lost, in Pakrit, which were written down at the same time as the Canon, in the last century BCE", ..
cjmacie wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2016 1:05 pm
mikenz66 wrote: ...overinterpreting some of these brief statements.
The modern mind, confronting ancient literary traditions, displays several idiosyncrasies that complicate the task.

One is the idea of "authorship", embodied in which is an assertion of identity, of self, so to speak. (Think of, for example, the whole issue of "intellectual property".) To illustrate this at another extreme, in ancient Chinese literature (philosophy, religion, medicine, etc), if a writer wanted something to be heard and respected, it would have to be phrased as "The Yellow Emperor said…", or, "According to the ancient masters…". One never touted "I have this great new idea!" That would be an affront to tradition, to the ancestors. As I have noted now and again around here, there's much in common between the ancient Indian-Buddhist mind and the contemporaneous Chinese practices – not least of which the enthusiasm which the Chinese embraced Buddhism itself.
mikenz66 wrote: ... The Visuddhimagga doesn't seem to be claiming to be presenting something new, it seems to me to be a summary of ancient commentary and experience.
Another modern aspect is the Western philosophical attraction to literal interpretation, seeing black or white – tracing perhaps back to Aristotelian logic of "non-contradiction": either A or not-A is true. This is compounded when the interpretation works through translations, using modern terms where it's an easy trap, using modern associations of those terms, to find something to quibble about when looking for "THE truth" of what is said/written long ago in the context of a different worldview.

Counter example being that extensive passage quoted above cataloging the various ways in which that key phrase in the Satipatthana-Sutta -- "ekayano ayam magga" may be viewed, and especially without any emphasis on having to eliminate all but the "correct" meaning. (C.f. Ven. Analayo's two Satipatthana books for multiple examples of both where he does honor multiple meanings, but also some where he s/t goes a bit overboard trying to assert a single "true" meaning.)

Related is the notion of "polysemous" dimensions of interpretation: "poly" = many, "semous" = meaning, as in "semantics". Illustration, again, in ancient Chinese core texts – which were, btw, largely intended, very much as ancient Buddhists texts, as mnemonic aids to an essentially oral tradition, rather than as irrefutable text-book definitions. Chinese characters ("words") being "pictographic" images, originally depicting concrete objects, were, over time extended to represent, in addition, more abstract ideas, and diverse in different areas of application. So one witnesses modern interpreters, including modern Chinese eager to out-science the Westerners, trying to prove the one true meaning of some rather obtuse ancient text. But then there are, thankfully, also interpreters – both Western and Eastern -- more attuned to the original contexts and willing to admit that the original intention might well have been polysemous expression of simultaneous multiple perspectives.

Indo-european scripts (from Sanskrit/Pali all the way down to English) are more "literal" (composed of abstract "letters") than "graphic" (as Chinese or Egyptian hieroglyphics). Non-the-less, the "meanings" in ancient Indic languages (i.e. Sanskrit, Pali,…) are often heavily imbued with symbolic or metaphorical dimensions, which readily admit of polysemous interpretation. Modern scholarship has been digging out how the Buddha appears to have used terms and images well-know in his time from their usage in Vedic, Brahmanic, and other traditions, and then overlaid, twisted their traditional meanings to communicate his radical insights into the same problem areas they were earlier used to illuminate.

The significance of such scholarly findings shows us that seeing the meaning of terms from simultaneous multiple dimensions can be critical to understanding how they were being used. E.g. to appreciate the play on words the Buddha often used get his listeners attention and guide them to new realizations.

Recognizing that dimension at work in the Buddha's texts, and seeing how it's been re-enforced over time in the core abhidhamma and commentarial practice of constantly turning words over, around, and inside-out to see their multiple semantic dimensions -- reading, e.g., the Vissudhimagga, one can't help but notice the extensive amount of the text devoted to dissecting quotations (most often from sutta-s) into the meanings of each word – we may well notice with greater insight how we, today, in fact are overlaying (commenting, if you will) the ancient texts with linguistic associations that originate in our modern mental lifestyle. If we're not acutely aware of this dimension, we're then in danger of becoming trapped by our more modern biases, and miss what treasures may be dug-up in ancient texts that, in fact, can help liberate us from our conditioned limitations.
...
Commentary Review
Eko Care wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 8:41 pm
Ceisiwr wrote:
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.
On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás
It must be admitted that the point raised by Mr. Childers is one of grave importance as affecting the credibility of Buddhaghosa and the authenticity of all the commentaries on the Tipitaka. From a missionary point of view, the astounding statement that a commentary on Buddha's discourses existed during his lifetime, and was rehearsed along with those discourses at the First Great Council, appears so improbable and unnatural as at once to justify one in discrediting the testimony; and I doubt not that missionary orientalists will hail the discovery as a valuable addition to their stock of arguments against the genuineness and authenticity of the Buddhist Scriptures.
Beginning with a disrespect towards commentaries
Either by personal views of these teachers,
or by chronological approaches of them,
the beginner will have been fed,
a subtle disrespect towards commentaries.
mikenz66 wrote
They do not identify that their current interpretation of the texts is likely to be imperfect.
SDC wrote:
I used to be a “commentaries aren’t necessary” guy until several members here, along with AK Warder, took me to school on just how invaluable the work of ancient grammarians and scholars is to the translation process. So as we sit here and read the suttas, it is impossible to bypass the what the commentaries have already provided.
Post Reply