Text-critical approach is Untrustworthy! An instance.

[Eko Care]

How much of the text is commented on, by the commentary?

I noticed just another attempt of Sujato to constitute a conjecture to which venerable Dhammanado had given an answer.

There is an idea proposed by some that the Pali commentaries have a crucial role in establishing our earliest readings of the Pali texts. The argument is that all our manuscripts are much later than the commentaries. In cases, therefore, where a commentarial reading is unambiguous, it provides our earliest independent witness for the text.

Now, clearly there is something to this. The commentaries are sometimes invaluable in establishing both the reading and the meaning of the Pali text. But we can sometimes get the impression that somehow we can reconstitute “the” text before the commentators, which would then become the authoritative source.

This idea is dubious on many grounds, …
…

1. The commentaries only comment on a few words. How much of the text, exactly, is commented on? Well, let’s do a very rough count, based on the sutta I happen to be translating right now, DN 18 Janavasabha. The text has close to 3000 words. The commentary comments on about 126 words. That’s about 4%. The meaningful percentage is somewhat higher than that, for many words are repeated. Still, it’s only a small fraction of the text.
2. ..
3. ..
4. ..
5. ..
6. ..
7. ..
…In establishing the Pali text, commentaries are occasionally helpful as a reference, but that’s all.

The commentaries only comment on a few words. …

I think this seriously underestimates the proportion.

With the Janavasabha being the 18th sutta in the DN, it’s not really a very good choice for this sort of calculation. Buddhaghosa doesn’t like to repeat himself and so when he has defined a term once in the course of a commentary he won’t usually define any subsequent occurrences of it in later suttas except where it’s being used in a different sense. And so to get an accurate picture it would be better to look at the first sutta in each nikāya.

In the case of the Brahmajāla, when we eliminate all the duplicates we’re left with 1353 words. The commentary defines 710 of them. So that’s already 52%. But actually it would be considerably more than this, for many of the words are merely the same lexeme occurring in different cases:

aññamaññaṃ
aññamaññamhi
aññamaññassa

While others are the same noun followed by different numerals:

jātisahassampi
jātisahassāni
jātisatampi
jātisatāni
jātisatasahassampi
jātisatasahassāni

And yet others are conjunctions, personal and demonstrative pronouns, etc. that seldom need defining. Eliminate all these and I believe the figure might well rise to 70% or more.

Good points, thanks, I should change my OP to reflect this. But first I’d like to check the numbers. …

These are the figures that I get by applying the search method I mentioned in my last post to the whole Tipiṭaka, minus most of the KN. For the KN I’ve omitted all the books in verse, except the Jataka, because too many of the commentaries’ glosses are for words in the commentarial stories rather than the canonical verses.

The first figure is the number of ‘unique’ words in the mūlapāḷi and the second the number of definienda in the atthakathā. For the former I first removed all the variant readings, since the atthakathā will only be commenting on one of them. Bearing in mind the great number of repetitions of a single word in different numbers and grammatical cases, I suspect the first figure would be more accurate if it were reduced by about a third; for now I’ve left it as it is.

Vinaya Pitaka 31563/6809 = 22%

Suttanta

Digha Nikaya 17374/6347 = 37%
Majjhima Nikaya 21662/8594 = 40%
Samyutta Nikaya 23058/7447 = 32%
Anguttara Nikaya 25481/9663 = 38%

Khuddaka Nikaya
Udana 4287/2359 = 55%
Itivuttaka 3330/1743 = 52%
Jataka 25947/12781 = 49%
Niddesa 18380/6906 = 38%
Patisambhidamagga 8498/4489 = 53%

Abhidhamma

Dhammasangani 2574/784 = 30%
Vibhanga 5850/1722 = 29%
Dhatukatha 826/133 = 16%
Puggalapannatti 2524/673 = 27%
Kathavatthu 6900/741 = 11%
Yamaka 1279/232 = 18%
Patthana 4692/491 = 10%

Wow, that is fantastic, thanks so much. Much more scientific than my first post!

[mikenz66]

That thread [https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/on ... texts/5820] is a nice example of a polite nuanced discussion. None of the participants are trying to prove that they are completely correct and that those who disagree are completely wrong. Such an open-minded attitude is essential if one is to actually learn anything...


Mike

[sunnat]

[BKh]

is a nice example of a polite nuanced discussion.

Perhaps they brought the thread here so they could have a discussion that was not.

[Sam Vara]

That thread [https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/on ... texts/5820] is a nice example of a polite nuanced discussion. None of the participants are trying to prove that they are completely correct and that those who disagree are completely wrong. Such an open-minded attitude is essential if one is to actually learn anything...


Mike

Excellent point. For most people, it is hard to relinquish a position if they have invested their ego in being right, and claimed that other people are somehow malign or stupid if they disagree with them.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

What I don't understand is why this topic is entitled "Text-critical approach is Untrustworthy! An instance" when venerable Dhammanando did in fact do some excellent text-critical analysis.

Metta,
Paul.

[Eko Care]

I found another comment from Venerable Dhammanando.

Why do people expect everyone to accept these texts religiously with blind faith in miracles especially in EBT context?

I don’t think any reasonable Buddhist would expect such a thing of an outsider.

On the other hand, reasonable outsiders oughtn’t to be surprised at religious Buddhists reading their religious texts religiously.

[mikenz66]

For context: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/bu ... /21?page=2

Perhaps you could explain what this has to do with text-critical approach? Are you suggesting that those Buddhists who are not Classical Theravadins are necessarily "not religious". That seems like an odd assumption.

What puzzles me about your insistence on claiming that people such as Bhikkhu Sujato are destroying the Dhamma is that Bhikkhu Sujato is much more open minded about the value of the Abhidhamma and Commentaries than many people who post on this particular Forum.
Compare his analysis of Theravada developments, How Early Buddhism differs from Theravada: a checklist , https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/ho ... list/23019

We should not be surprised that traditions accumulate changes. And if we gather them all as a big list, it sure looks like a lot. But don’t forget, traditions are also responsible for maintaining the Dhamma and making it possible for us to practice. And they also preserve many aspects of Dhamma that are not easily reducible to simple doctrines: a way of being or ethos, a sense of virtue, a reverence for the Buddha and his teachings.

With Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma, viewtopic.php?t=40493

Any one single Sutta on the subject of paṭiccasamuppāda has more worth and value in explaining dhammas, than the entire misguided, Sutta-opposing enterprise known as the Abhidhamma. Since the practice of the commentarial tradition is to retrofit Abhidhammic principles onto the Sutta Pitaka, it too is of less worth and value in explaining dhammas than a single Sutta from The Buddha on the subject of paṭiccasamuppāda.

Bhikkhu Sujato also ran a couple of courses on the Visuddhimagga, including:
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/se ... hosa/21520
which actually speak very positively on the usefulness of the Ancient Commentaries.

I could also say the same about Bhikkhu Analayo, and, in fact, the vast majority of people who identify as "Early Buddhist", or some such...

Unfortunately, you seem to be reacting to some of the less tolerant expressions of "Early Buddhism" on this Forum by being equally intolerant. This approach is unlikely to change anyone's mind (any more than Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma is likely to change the minds of you and other Classical Thervadins) and so it is ultimately pointless.

For me, Forums such as this one and SuttaCentral, are not places where "the truth" is going to be decided by argumentation. "The truth" can only be approached for oneself by honest and sustained practice, preferably with good teachers and spiritual companions. Forums can be useful sources of information that may be helpful to practice, and they are most useful when approached in good faith, and with a willingness to learn (which is what Bhikkhus Sujato and Dhammanando were doing in the conversation you posted in the OP).


Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Unfortunately, you seem to be reacting to some of the less tolerant expressions of "Early Buddhism" on this Forum by being equally intolerant.

Except this Buddhist Path is headed by Right View, not Tolerant View. Tolerant View is not the forerunner of the Noble Eightfold Path.

There is nothing wrong with Eko Care's certitude he is right. It is good to have confidence in the Dhamma. Indeed, if he has found something worthy of his confidence, then good for him. My only preference regarding his posts (which would be as much for his benefit, as for that of readers) is that he focus on speaking that which he believes to be good and true, rather than randomly point at that which he believes is not, since the path comes about via the penetration of the good and true - not via observing and finger-wagging at the bad and the false. Had you quoted my topic in full (which of course, would not be appropriate to this section), it would have been apparent that what I believe to be good and true, renders that which is incompatible, to be otherwise. It was not mere gratuitous naysaying - in fact I explicitly called that out in the Preface to the topic.

There is no obligation for anyone to agree with Eko Care. I often do not. But when people have conviction in their ideas, at least they are personally invested in them, and if they know them (rather than merely parrot what someone else has said), they know the fruit of their view. I want to hear such people and understand the truth as it appears to them. That's where tolerance comes in... being able to listen to and hear other people's view, when they don't conform to your own. For example, today I heard a Christian of 30 years tell me that he sees all other religions as being the work of Satan. I don't agree with that, nor does it necessarily align with anything I've ever read in the Bible. However, I appreciated his authenticity - his fearlessness - his courage - his willingness to speak his truth as it appears to him. There was simply the seed and the result. There was no hiding behind equivocation, nor chin-stroking, nor academia, nor tactical political middle ground, nor milksoppery, nor mamby-pamby fence-sitting. There was simply his Lion's Roar - to do with as others see fit. And good for him. And good for Eko Care.

So where is the real intolerance, then?

Metta,
Paul.

[BKh]

This approach is unlikely to change anyone's mind

Exactly. The self proclaimed "protectors of the faith" who (as most argumentative people do) make a caricature of their imagined ideological opponents, would better spend their time translating the commentaries if they hope to win people over to the side of following them.

But it's far easier to slander than it is to translate.

[mikenz66]

Greetings,

Unfortunately, you seem to be reacting to some of the less tolerant expressions of "Early Buddhism" on this Forum by being equally intolerant.

Except this Buddhist Path is headed by Right View, not Tolerant View. Tolerant View is not the forerunner of the Noble Eightfold Path.

Of course. Who is advocating practising using "tolerant view"? Certainly not me. I was talking about posts on a Discussion Forum.

Being tolerant and discussing issues without making sweeping, dismissive statements doesn't require agreeing with all opinions, or adopting some mish-mash of them. Nor does it mean that the poster are confused. On the contrary, in my experience it gives the best opportunity to genuinely discuss difficult issues and learn.


Mike

[Spiny Norman]

This approach is unlikely to change anyone's mind

Exactly. The self proclaimed "protectors of the faith" who (as most argumentative people do) make a caricature of their imagined ideological opponents, would better spend their time translating the commentaries if they hope to win people over to the side of following them.

But it's far easier to slander than it is to translate.

[Ceisiwr]

This approach is unlikely to change anyone's mind

Exactly. The self proclaimed "protectors of the faith" who (as most argumentative people do) make a caricature of their imagined ideological opponents, would better spend their time translating the commentaries if they hope to win people over to the side of following them.

But it's far easier to slander than it is to translate.

Funnily enough I’ve started doing just that.

[BKh]

Funnily enough I’ve started doing just that.

I hope you mean translating

[Ceisiwr]

Funnily enough I’ve started doing just that.

I hope you mean translating

Yes lol. I’m still an amateur, so might take me a while. I was going to post a short commentary I’ve translated within the next few weeks, once I’ve tweaked it.