Have I understood the the importance of Commentaries and Abhidhamma correctly?

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
User avatar
SilaSamadhi8
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2020 6:27 pm

Have I understood the the importance of Commentaries and Abhidhamma correctly?

Post by SilaSamadhi8 »

Hi 🙏

I initially got into "Theravada" practice through teachers that speak very strongly against the Commentaries and Abhidhamma: Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Ajahn Brahm, Bhante Vimalaramsi and the Forest Tradition in general.

But from what I understood reading resources from CLASSIC THERAVADA, the Suttas are tailored teachings the Buddha gave to specific persons or audiences (Thanks to his infinite wisdom and skillful means) and they sometimes seem very vague (specially meditation instructions) and open to different interpretations.

That's where the Commentaries (Atthakatha) come in; I was reading the Majjhima Atthakatha by Bhikkhu Bodhi and it was night/day difference on my understanding; It contains the context of audience/location of a certain Sutta and specific details like on meditation practice. From what I read these commentaries were written in an old language (Prakrit or old Sinhalese) and Buddhaghosa translated them back into Pali. Surely this means the original source would be as old as the Nikayas themselves right?

And on the topic of Abhiddhamma, the main premise seems to be kinda the same: since the Suttas were bits and pieces the Abhiddhamma is an attempt to condense the Buddha's teaching into a single collection. First of all, is this correct?

Also, what came first: the commentaries to the Nikayas or Abhiddhama?

Forgive me for all the questions but I really wanna get to the bottom of it.


With Metta 😀
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Have I understood the the importance of Commentaries and Abhidhamma correctly?

Post by robertk »

SilaSamadhi8 wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 12:35 pm Hi 🙏



And on the topic of Abhiddhamma, the main premise seems to be kinda the same: since the Suttas were bits and pieces the Abhiddhamma is an attempt to condense the Buddha's teaching into a single collection. First of all, is this correct?

Also, what came first: the commentaries to the Nikayas or Abhiddhama?

Forgive me for all the questions but I really wanna get to the bottom of it.


With Metta 😀
The Expositor (Atthasalini). Commentary On The Dhammasangani The First Book Of The Abhidhamma Pitaka. Translated by Pe Maung Tin. pp. 35-38,
Thus as rehearsed at the Council, the Abhidhamma is a Pitaka by Pitaka-classification, Khuddaka-Nikaya by Nikaya-classification, [28] Veyyakarana by Part-classification and constitutes two or three thousand units of text by the classification of textual units. One of those bhikkhus who studied the Abhidhamma once sat in the midst of bhikkhus who knew all the five Nikayas, and quoting the text (sutta) from the Abhidhamma taught the Doctrine thus:

[Preacher] ‘The aggregate of matter is unmoral; of the four (mental) aggregates some are moral, some immoral, and some unmoral. Ten sense-organs are unmoral; the (remaining) two sense-organs may be moral, immoral, or unmoral. Sixteen elements are unmoral; the (remaining) two elements may be moral, immoral, or unmoral. The Fact of the Origination of ill is immoral; the Fact of the Path is moral; the Fact of Cessation is unmoral; the Fact of ill may be moral, immoral, or unmoral. Ten controlling powers are unmoral; the controlling power of grief is immoral; the controlling power of (intellect which prompts and inspires us)—“I shall come to know the unknown”—is moral; four controlling powers may be moral or unmoral; six controlling powers may be moral, immoral or unmoral.’

A bhikkhu, seated there, asked,

‘Preacher, you quote a long text as though you were going to encircle Mount Sineru; what text is it?’

[Preacher] ‘Abhidhamma text, brother.’

[Bhikkhu] ‘Why do you quote the Abhidhamma text ? Does it not behove you to quote other texts spoken by the Buddha?’

(Preacher) ‘ Brother, by whom was the Abhidhamma taught?’

[Bhikkhu] ‘Not by the Buddha.’

(Preacher) ‘But did you, brother, study the Vinaya-Pitaka ?’

[Bhikkhu] ‘No, brother, I did not.’

(Preacher) ‘Methinks, because you have not studied the Vinaya-Pitaka, you say so in ignorance.’

[Bhikkhu] ‘I have, indeed, brother, studied some Vinaya.’

(Preacher) ‘Then that has been badly acquired. You must have been seated at one end of the assembly and dozing. A person who leaves the world under such teachers as yourself to give the Refuge-formula, or a person who receives the full ordination under a chapter of such teachers as yourself, who have badly studied the Vinaya, does amiss. And why ? Because of this badly “studying some Vinaya.” For it has been said by the Buddha:1 “ If without any intention of reviling the Vinaya one were to instigate another, saying, Pray study the Suttas or Gath as or Abhidhamma first and afterwards you will learn the Vinaya—-there is no offence in him.” (Again, in the Bhikkhuni Vibhanga:2 “A bhikkhuni is guilty of a minor offence) if she questions on the Abhidhamma or Vinaya after getting permission (to question) on the Suttanta, or on the Suttanta or Vinaya after getting permission (to question) on the Abhidhamma, or on the Suttanta or Abhidhamma after getting permission (to question) on the Vinaya.” But you do not know even that much.” 3

With so much refutation was the heretic put down. The Mahdgosinga Sutta is even a stronger authority (to show that the Abhidhamma is the Buddha’s word). For therein when Sariputta, the Generalissimo of the Law, approached the Teacher to inform him of the reciprocal questions and answers that took place between Mahamoggallana and himself, and told how the former had answered, (the Master said) [29] ‘Brother Sariputta, in the religion the talk of two bhikkhus on the Abhidhamma, each asking and answering the other without faltering, is in accord with the Dhamma. Now such a bhikkhu, brother Sariputta, might enhance the beauty of the Gosinga Sala Forest.’4 The Teacher, far from saying that bhikkhus, who knew Abhidhamma, were outside his religion, lifted his drum-like neck and filling (with breath) his mouth, fraught as the full-moon with blessings, emitted his godlike voice congratulating Moggallana thus: ‘Well done, well done, Sariputta ! One should answer rightly as Moggallana has done; Moggallana is indeed a preacher of the Dhamma.’ And tradition has it that those bhikkhus only who know Abhidhamma are true preachers of the Dhamma; the rest, though they speak on the Dhamma, are not preachers thereof. And why? They, in speaking on the Dhamma, confuse the different kinds of Kamma and of its results, the distinction between mind and matter, and the different kinds of states. The students of Abhidhamma do not thus get confused; hence a bhikkhu who knows Abhidhamma, whether he preaches the Dhamma or not, will be able to answer questions whenever asked. He alone, therefore, is a true preacher of the Dhamma.
User avatar
SilaSamadhi8
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2020 6:27 pm

Re: Have I understood the the importance of Commentaries and Abhidhamma correctly?

Post by SilaSamadhi8 »

robertk wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:14 pm
Hi Robert,

I read your quotation but the Atthasalini is a commentary to Abhidhamma. One of my doubts is about the commentaries to the Oldest Nikayas themselves: do they come before or after the Abhidhamma was developed (or we don't know?) ?
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Have I understood the the importance of Commentaries and Abhidhamma correctly?

Post by robertk »

SilaSamadhi8 wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 6:14 pm
robertk wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:14 pm
Hi Robert,

I read your quotation but the Atthasalini is a commentary to Abhidhamma. One of my doubts is about the commentaries to the Oldest Nikayas themselves: do they come before or after the Abhidhamma was developed (or we don't know?) ?
The ancient Commentary - which Buddhaghosa relied on - was recorded at the first coincil.
From the Atthasalini:
The ancient commentary therof was sang By the First council, Mahakassapa Their leader, and later again by seers, Mahinda brought it to the peerless isle, Ceylon,
The Abhidhamma wssn't 'developed', it was taught by the Buddha to his mother in the deva world and then the outline was taught to Sariputta who passed itvto his students.
User avatar
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Re: Have I understood the the importance of Commentaries and Abhidhamma correctly?

Post by Eko Care »

SilaSamadhi8 wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:17 pmI see.
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.
Abhidhamma makes things really easy regarding interpretations of Dhamma
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote
Just recently, a thought occured to me that it is very fortunate for me to have some chances to get in touch with a little bit of Abhidhamma, making things really easy regarding interpretations of Dhamma readings.

This thought formed after seeing the instances that even those very great minds of these (and recent) days who seemed not wanting to rely on abhidhamma usually ended up walking hazardously & laboriously on explanation about the attainments, on the verge of apparently contradicting the Buddha's teachings.
Also see here:
Commentary Review - How did the inconsistencies in the commentaries come about?
User avatar
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Re: Have I understood the the importance of Commentaries and Abhidhamma correctly?

Post by Eko Care »

SilaSamadhi8 wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 12:35 pm I initially got into "Theravada" practice through teachers that speak very strongly against the Commentaries and Abhidhamma: Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Ajahn Brahm, Bhante Vimalaramsi and the Forest Tradition in general.

But from what I understood reading resources from CLASSIC THERAVADA, the Suttas are tailored teachings the Buddha gave to specific persons or audiences (Thanks to his infinite wisdom and skillful means) and they sometimes seem very vague (specially meditation instructions) and open to different interpretations.

That's where the Commentaries (Atthakatha) come in; I was reading the Majjhima Atthakatha by Bhikkhu Bodhi and it was night/day difference on my understanding; It contains the context of audience/location of a certain Sutta and specific details like on meditation practice. From what I read these commentaries were written in an old language (Prakrit or old Sinhalese) and Buddhaghosa translated them back into Pali. Surely this means the original source would be as old as the Nikayas themselves right?
See the comment below.
bksubhuti wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 12:15 pm It is good to understand the Abhidhamma as a course in Chemistry and the Suttas as a Cooking class.
You really need both to make 10,000 Oreo cookies. My Chemistry Professor used to do consulting for big food companies. He told me that you cannot just multiply a recipe by 1000 and get the desired result. It just does not work. That was where he came in, and probably made lots of money doing so.

Another way.
Many Top Chefs also know about nutrition, and how different foods chemically interact without knowing the full Chemistry as a professor does, but they still know many technical details with how food ingredients work and how they interact with each other.
This would be abhidhamma

The recipe book that a regular person follows and gets a similar result would be suttas.
However, a Top Chef will also use the same recipe book but it will appear different to the trained Chef than the average Joe.

However, Wisdom is the goal and when it comes to really complex things you do need both according to the definition of classical Theravada.

Unlike the Suttanta belief, Classical Theravada Followers praise and follow the Suttas. When Classical Theravada Followers read the Suttas, they understand the background information and the chemistry or how the ingredients work together. This is important.
User avatar
Ṭhānuttamo
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:40 pm
Location: Kefenrod, Germany
Contact:

Re: Have I understood the the importance of Commentaries and Abhidhamma correctly?

Post by Ṭhānuttamo »

Eko Care wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 12:47 am
SilaSamadhi8 wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:17 pmI see.
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.
Abhidhamma makes things really easy regarding interpretations of Dhamma
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote
Just recently, a thought occured to me that it is very fortunate for me to have some chances to get in touch with a little bit of Abhidhamma, making things really easy regarding interpretations of Dhamma readings.

This thought formed after seeing the instances that even those very great minds of these (and recent) days who seemed not wanting to rely on abhidhamma usually ended up walking hazardously & laboriously on explanation about the attainments, on the verge of apparently contradicting the Buddha's teachings.
Also see here:
Commentary Review - How did the inconsistencies in the commentaries come about?
:goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost:
User avatar
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Re: Have I understood the the importance of Commentaries and Abhidhamma correctly?

Post by Eko Care »

A. Bhikkhu wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 11:41 am :goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost:
Tibetan and Chinese sources

These are Accounts from Tibetan and Chinese sources regarding the first council, if anyone is looking for a confirmation outside of Theravada tradition.

“Geiger’s introduction to his translation of the ‘Mahavamsa’ (PTS)”:
"Among the Northern Buddhist sources dealing with the first Council I mention the Mahavastu. Here, in agreement with the southern tradition Kasyapa is given as the originator of the coucil, the number of the bhiksus taking part is stated to be 500 and the place the aptaparna grotto near Rajagrha.

"There is, besides, an account in the second volume of the Dulva, the Tibetan Vinaya of the Sarvastivadin sect. The fixing of the canon took place, according to this source, in the following order: 1) Dharma, by Ananda; 2)Vinaya, by Upali; 3)Matrka (i.e.Abhidarma) by Mahakasyapa himself.…

Fa-hian and Hiuen-thsang also mention the First Council. The former gives the number of the bhiksus a 500, the latter as 1,000; the former speaks in a general way of ‘a collection of sacred books’, the latter expressly mentions also the redaction of the Abhidharma by Mahakasyapa.
Norman, K.R. (1983) Pali Literature , p. 119. :
(Included in Wikipedia as well)
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. As has already been noted, some canonical texts include commentarial passages, while the existence of the Old Commentary in the Vinaya-pitaka and the canonical status of the Niddesa prove that some sort of exegesis was felt to be needed at a very early stage of Buddhism.
A Liberal Buddhist “On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás
User avatar
Ṭhānuttamo
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:40 pm
Location: Kefenrod, Germany
Contact:

Re: Have I understood the the importance of Commentaries and Abhidhamma correctly?

Post by Ṭhānuttamo »

SilaSamadhi8 wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 12:35 pm But from what I understood reading resources from CLASSIC THERAVADA, the Suttas are tailored teachings the Buddha gave to specific persons or audiences (Thanks to his infinite wisdom and skillful means) and they sometimes seem very vague (specially meditation instructions) and open to different interpretations.
Exactly! That is where the widespread confusion arises from nowadays, part of it at least.
SilaSamadhi8 wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 12:35 pm That's where the Commentaries (Atthakatha) come in; I was reading the Majjhima Atthakatha by Bhikkhu Bodhi and it was night/day difference on my understanding; It contains the context of audience/location of a certain Sutta and specific details like on meditation practice. From what I read these commentaries were written in an old language (Prakrit or old Sinhalese) and Buddhaghosa translated them back into Pali. Surely this means the original source would be as old as the Nikayas themselves right?
According to tradition, they were also rehearsed/discussed at the First Buddhist Council, at least parts of it. So, originally, they have probably been composed in Pāḷi. They also contain the opinions of later generations up to the Second and Third Councils and a little later, but Buddhaghosa is said to have been faithful in editing only what was present to him, clearly delineating his own opinion from the ancient material that has been passed on through the generations. So, we may safely assume that they provide an invaluable lens in understanding what the Buddha said in the suttas, even including the opinions of the great elders that lived during the Buddha's time.
SilaSamadhi8 wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 12:35 pm And on the topic of Abhiddhamma, the main premise seems to be kinda the same: since the Suttas were bits and pieces the Abhiddhamma is an attempt to condense the Buddha's teaching into a single collection. First of all, is this correct?
It is also that, but the Abhidhamma contains its own unique contribution to early Buddhism, for example the classification of 121 different types of consciousness and its concomitants, among many other things.
SilaSamadhi8 wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 12:35 pm Also, what came first: the commentaries to the Nikayas or Abhiddhama?
Very hard to say for the texts in their entirety. As I said, the commentaries also contain explanations of the elders of the Second and Third Councils and the Kathāvatthu of the Abhidhammapiṭaka has been finally shaped during the Third Council, although its outline has said to be given by the Buddha. So, parts of one may be older than those of the other, and the other way around. Even the parts that stem from during the lifetime of the Buddha, either originating from himself or his disciples, are hard to determine chronologically since he preached for 45 years.
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: Have I understood the the importance of Commentaries and Abhidhamma correctly?

Post by Ontheway »

:goodpost:

I think it is only reasonable to see Atthakatha as miscellaneous teachings given by Lord Buddha and Arahants to their students. Otherwise, to think Lord Buddha and all other Arahants said nothing more than what was recorded in the Suttas, is so illogical and highly improbable.
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22392
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Have I understood the the importance of Commentaries and Abhidhamma correctly?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Whilst some commentary is very old, that doesn't mean all of it is. I imagine there is actually a layer in the commentaries, with some being earlier than others. The same as what we see with suttas and Abhidhamma texts (portions of the Vibhaṅga being quite old in terms of Abhidhamma).
“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: Have I understood the the importance of Commentaries and Abhidhamma correctly?

Post by Eko Care »

Ontheway wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 1:49 pm I think it is only reasonable to see Atthakatha as miscellaneous teachings given by Lord Buddha and Arahants to their students. Otherwise, to think Lord Buddha and all other Arahants said nothing more than what was recorded in the Suttas, is so illogical and highly improbable.
:goodpost:
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 2:01 pm Whilst some commentary is very old, that doesn't mean all of it is. I imagine there is actually a layer in the commentaries, with some being earlier than others. The same as what we see with suttas and Abhidhamma texts (portions of the Vibhaṅga being quite old in terms of Abhidhamma).
Estimation of Authenticity or Accuracy merely based on written time, is not a sensible approach at all.

What, actually, are the reasons for people to engage in such immature speculations?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22392
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Have I understood the the importance of Commentaries and Abhidhamma correctly?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Eko Care wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 2:53 pm

Estimation of Authenticity or Accuracy merely based on written time, is not a sensible approach at all.

What, actually, are the reasons for people to engage in such immature speculations?
It lets you see if there has been a development in thinking, and so what the earlier teachings looked like. I'm not claiming that later = bad by the way. Why do you think textual analysis is "immature"?
“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: Have I understood the the importance of Commentaries and Abhidhamma correctly?

Post by Eko Care »

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 2:55 pm
Eko Care wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 2:53 pm Estimation of Authenticity or Accuracy merely based on written time, is not a sensible approach at all.

What, actually, are the reasons for people to engage in such immature speculations?
It lets you see if there has been a development in thinking, and so what the earlier teachings looked like.
I'm not claiming that later = bad by the way. Why do you think textual analysis is "immature"?
The maximum accurate assumption that can be derived by the textual analysis is, it's written date.

How can the written date be considered as a fact for proving a text as inaccurate or unnecessary?

It is just written date.

Therefore such approach is "immature".
Post Reply