Page 1 of 2

Comments on "commentary"

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 11:51 am
by cjmacie
Having made some comments myself around here recently using "commentary" in a rather broad, perhaps sloppy, sense*, in effect for any "interpretation"; and having noticed the excellent points being brought out in the current thread " 'some say…' " (http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=28096), here's some potential clarification – extracted to a new thread to avoid hijacking another thread.

The status of my current understanding (open to correction):

Strictly speaking, a "commentary" (in the Pali Canon, in Confucian texts, Christian texts, etc.) is a work that follows some original text and, more or less line-by-line, trying to explain tries it in more detail. In the Pali tradition, these are called Atthakathā **. For instance the Majjhima Nikaya Atthakatha, (abbreviation MA) is "the" commentary on the Majjhima Nikaya. I believe "the" commentaries always treat basic texts in one of the three "baskets" (Tipitaka). For instance, Buddhaghosa's commentary on the Dhammasangani (1st book of Abhidhamma), the Atthasālinī, is titled in its English translation as "The Expositer" – commentary as exposition.

Then a "sub-commentary" (Pali "Tikā") is an exposition of a commentary, and hence, perhaps, of the original text. The official "sub-commentaries" I guess (haven't, yet, read any) each relate to one of the official canonical commentaries.

One sees this in the major subdivisions of the CST4.0 version of the Pali Canon:
1) Tipitaka – the "3 baskets"
2) Atthakathā – the commentaries, on (1)
3) Tikā – the sub-commentaries, on (2)
4) Añña "other" – e.g. the Visuddhimagga
Where both (2) and (3) have 3 subdivisions: "Sutta Pitaka", "Vinayapitaka", and "Abhidhamma Pitaka". (Why the second one runs the two words together beats me.)

One finds clear understanding of this organization occasionally. For instance, Pa Auk Sayadaw (in the interview in Richard Shankman's book on Samadhi), lists them in passing:
"People should trace back to the original suttas, the original commentaries and subcommentaries, and then to the Visuddhimagga, and only then will they understand the meanings."

There are also other (non Canonical) commentaries written by various authors down through the ages and into the present. For instance, the works (writings and transcribed talks) of Mahasi Sayadaw include 15 or so "Discourses" on individual sutta-s; though some of these include a lot more than just following the sutta text – e.g. his discourse on the Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta. I've heard there is a commentary on the Vissudhimagga. I'm Not sure how books like the Abhidhammamattha-Sangaha (which B.Bodhi translated as "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma") would be classified.

Then there's the term "the commentarial tradition", which it seems more diffuse, as people (including myself) use it a lot without defining exactly. Does it refer to a specific, well-defined body of texts? Or does it include an on-going tradition of glossing ancient texts – as, for example, both Mahasi Sayadaw's great "Treatise on Vipassana / Manual of Insight" and Daniel Ingram's "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha" might be considered modern commentaries on the Visuddhimagga.


* In "Suttas and Commentaries. Was: Bhante Jag - Euthanasia", I wrote:
"I suspect "commentary" automatically gets carried down in any tradition, as person-to-person transmission involves, almost by definition, "commentary" – more detailed explanation – by the teacher. The writings of Mun-Lee-Chah-etc, as well as those of the PaAuk or Mahasi Sayadaws are all "commentaries". "

** PTS Dictionary:
Attha – "… 3. sense, meaning,…"
kathā -- "… 5 explanation, exposition, in Attha-…"

Re: Comments on "commentary"

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 1:08 pm
by samseva
There is an important factor regarding the commentaries which you didn't mention—to better understand them and their accuracy—which is the date of which each commentary was written. Each commentary, which comments the Tipiṭaka, was written not long after the Tipiṭaka was written, and some thousands of years after it was written. While having been written earlier doesn't necessarily mean what was written is correct at all, it is a factor to take into consideration—as after thousands of years after the Buddha's passing away and his actual teachings, many things have probably been lost (and are sometimes left to near-speculation).
"People should trace back to the original suttas, the original commentaries and subcommentaries, and then to the Visuddhimagga, and only then will they understand the meanings."
This is just not true at all. The commentaries—and the sub-commentaries—are not required to understand the Suttas.

Re: Comments on "commentary"

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 2:11 pm
by Coëmgenu
samseva wrote:
"People should trace back to the original suttas, the original commentaries and subcommentaries, and then to the Visuddhimagga, and only then will they understand the meanings."
This is just not true at all. The commentaries—and the sub-commentaries—are not required to understand the Suttas.
They aren't required for reading the suttas, I don't think anyone would say, but its probably fair to say that some Buddhist guidance is preferable when diving into the suttas, regardless of the source that guidance/assistance comes from, and regardless of if it is technically reliable or not. Reading the suttas in a vacuum can very possibly, but not necessarily absolutely, lead to interpretations of said suttas that only reinforce preconceived notions, and do not challenge a practitioner to engage in a true and radical transformation of the mind and heart.

Reading the suttas, all by yourself with absolutely no engagement with the living dispensations of the Dhamma, is wont to produce all kinds of unwarranted heterodoxies/heteropraxies from dichotomous inferences based on any given readers' inherited cultural preconceptions, ideologies, hermeneutics, biases, etc, as is evidenced on this forum, where you can encounter all kinds of "back-to-the-sutta" ideologies for discerning authentic Buddhadharma/Buddhavacana that produce odd readings of the Dharma such as "Buddha says there is a true self" or "Buddha says that external reality doesn't exist". That is the consequence of what happens when people only embrance "their own" commentarial tradition with respect to the Pali scriptures.

Neither I, nor anyone else, to the best of my knowledge, is saying that "just" reading the Pali Canon will absolutely lead one astray from Buddhadharma, but to use the Pali Canon as one's exclusive source for Dhamma, to the point of neglecting other valid dispensations, such as those given by esteemed monks, brings with it the danger of transforming the Pali scriptures into a "echo chamber", wherein one simply 'reads into' the text all sorts of reinforcements of one's preconceived views and biases, transforming the Buddha into a "personal Buddha" who agrees with everything one thinks. Reading the Pali Canon in a vacuum wont necessarily 'absolutely' lead one away from proper interpretations, but I think it is an unnecessarily difficult and arduous path to try to completely re-build Buddhism from the ground up with only access to one particular section of the textual tradition, a vital section, to be sure, but just a section. Particularly, also, a section that has never been intended to be read on its own outside the context of proper Buddhist practice (calming and insight, etc).

Nor is anyone saying that people who embrace well-established commentarial traditions will absolutely follow the Dhamma without backsliding or misunderstanding. Suffice to say though, the practitioner who defeats preconceived biases against monks, against commentary, against perceivably "official" interpretations that 'seem' to stifle individuality, against tradition, will have an easier time, IMO, engaging in a functional way with the Buddhadharma. Note that I said "defeats preconceived biases", not "embraces without question", since its obviously equally useless to just blindly obey everything that someone who seems to have a lot of authority says to you, in regards to Buddhavacana interpretation.

:anjali:
-Caoimhghín

Re: Comments on "commentary"

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 3:27 pm
by robertk
a useful topic:
The attakattha to the Dhammasangani (first book of the Abhidhamma) the Atthasalini, (from the introductory discourse):
"The ancient commentary thereof was sang by the first council, Mahakassapa their leader, and later again by seers, Mahinda bought it to the peerless isle, Ceylon,.."

The ancient Commentary- some/much of it dating to the Buddha's time- was then translated into the Singhala language. Buddhaghosa later translated it back to Pali, with additions and clarifications.

Personally I find the Commentaries invaluable and worthy of great respect.

Re: Comments on "commentary"

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 4:14 pm
by Caodemarte
robertk wrote:a useful topic:
The attakattha to the Dhammasangani (first book of the Abhidhamma) the Atthasalini, (from the introductory discourse):
"The ancient commentary thereof was sang by the first council, Mahakassapa their leader, and later again by seers, Mahinda bought it to the peerless isle, Ceylon,.."

The ancient Commentary- some/much of it dating to the Buddha's time- was then translated into the Singhala language. Buddhaghosa later translated it back to Pali, with additions and clarifications.

Personally I find the Commentaries invaluable and worthy of great respect.
Could you identify a commentary that historians or scholars date back to the Buddha's time please?

Re: Comments on "commentary"

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 6:09 pm
by Assaji
cjmacie wrote:Then there's the term "the commentarial tradition", which it seems more diffuse, as people (including myself) use it a lot without defining exactly. Does it refer to a specific, well-defined body of texts? Or does it include an on-going tradition of glossing ancient texts – as, for example, both Mahasi Sayadaw's great "Treatise on Vipassana / Manual of Insight" and Daniel Ingram's "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha" might be considered modern commentaries on the Visuddhimagga.
Somehow this term, according to my observations, tends to refer to modern Asian interpretations. This leads to some confusion between modern Asian practices and practices of the 5th-10th centuries, reflected in Atthakatha and Tika. Due to this confusion some people, who reject modern approaches to practice, hasten to reject whole Atthakatha and Tika. However Athakattha and Tika are poorly studied nowadays and have quite distant relation to various modern practices.

I advocate "earliest possible source" approach, whereby one finds as early explanations as possible. That is, I try to find explanations of terms in the earliest preserved texts, and then, if I don't find clear explanation, gradually move to later texts.

Re: Comments on "commentary"

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 10:22 pm
by Coëmgenu
Caodemarte wrote:
robertk wrote:a useful topic:
The attakattha to the Dhammasangani (first book of the Abhidhamma) the Atthasalini, (from the introductory discourse):
"The ancient commentary thereof was sang by the first council, Mahakassapa their leader, and later again by seers, Mahinda bought it to the peerless isle, Ceylon,.."

The ancient Commentary- some/much of it dating to the Buddha's time- was then translated into the Singhala language. Buddhaghosa later translated it back to Pali, with additions and clarifications.

Personally I find the Commentaries invaluable and worthy of great respect.
Could you identify a commentary that historians or scholars date back to the Buddha's time please?
Are the places in Buddhaghosa's commentary, with his additions and clarifications, which come principally from this broader, more ancient tradition, clearly demarcated and delineated from Buddhaghosa's specific additions and clarifications? I have never read Buddhaghosa, so I'm asking from a position of legitimate curiosity, not anti-Buddhaghosa bias.

Re: Comments on "commentary"

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 11:11 pm
by cjmacie
samseva wrote:
"People should trace back to the original suttas, the original commentaries and subcommentaries, and then to the Visuddhimagga, and only then will they understand the meanings."
This is just not true at all. The commentaries—and the sub-commentaries—are not required to understand the Suttas.
Pay attention. The quotation from the Pa Auk Sayadaw says one should consider all four levels of the Pali Canon to "understand the meanings." That's Theravada.

Modernist pretensions that there are discrepancies, conflicts, that later commentaries misunderstood suttas, or willfully try to replace or add meaning, and that these modernist theories, after 2.5 millennia, are, for the first time, privy to the "real truth" -- That's conceit, plain and simply -- and so historically and culturally provincial.

Re: Comments on "commentary"

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:14 am
by mikenz66
Coëmgenu wrote:Are the places in Buddhaghosa's commentary, with his additions and clarifications, which come principally from this broader, more ancient tradition, clearly demarcated and delineated from Buddhaghosa's specific additions and clarifications? I have never read Buddhaghosa, so I'm asking from a position of legitimate curiosity, not anti-Buddhaghosa bias.
This post might be useful: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 96#p400739

The short answer is that Buddhaghosa wrote the Visuddhimagga based on the ancient commentaries, and also translated those commentaries (which had been written down in Sri Lanka in a local dialect) into Pali. See the introduction to Nanamoli's translation of the Visuddhimagga for a detailed list.

:anjali:
Mike

Re: Comments on "commentary"

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 2:30 am
by samseva
Whoa, I just said the Commentaries and Sub-Commentaries are not a requirement for understanding the Suttas and I'm rebuked with a wall of text and indirectly called pretentious.

I respect the Commentaries and have actually read parts of some of them. The Visuddhimagga is a book which I very much cherish and the Commentaries are also crucial to understanding almost the whole of the Vinaya Piṭaka.

No need to jump on your horse.

The Pa-Auk Sayadaw quote is exactly:
"People should trace back to the original suttas, the original commentaries and subcommentaries, and then to the Visuddhimagga, and only then will they understand the meanings."
Notice the "only then" part. The Suttas are already many thousands of pages. Add to that thousands upon thousands of pages of the Commentaries, even many more thousands of the Sub-Commentaries. And then add the Visuddhimagga to that. So you need to trace back to all of this to understand the Suttas? With this workload, there pretty much isn't any time left for meditation either. And if you don't have the time to read all the Commentaries, Sub-Commentaries and Visuddhimagga, what is the point of even starting to study the teachings then, if you aren't going to understand the meanings anyway?

The monks who became Arahants from hearing only a single discourse from the Buddha, did they need to read a few million pages of text—to only understand the meaning of what he taught? No.

A life reading the Tipiṭaka and meditating, at least to me, would be a better life—and a life where progress would be better—than a whole life spent almost almost solely studying many millions of pages of text, only to "understand the meaning of the Suttas". Sorry, but I'm not convinced that until I read the whole of the Commentaries, Sub-Commentaries and the Visuddhimagga, that I don't understand any of the teachings. I'd rather concentrate on what is important, studying the Tipiṭaka (with the Commentaries as an occasional aid is very much useful), meditating well, good sīla, and so on, than having as a goal to study all the Commentaries and Sub-Commentaries "to understand the meaning of the Suttas".
Coëmgenu wrote:[...]
cjmacie wrote:
samseva wrote:
"People should trace back to the original suttas, the original commentaries and subcommentaries, and then to the Visuddhimagga, and only then will they understand the meanings."
This is just not true at all. The commentaries—and the sub-commentaries—are not required to understand the Suttas.
Pay attention. The quotation from the Pa Auk Sayadaw says one should consider all four levels of the Pali Canon to "understand the meanings." That's Theravada.

Modernist pretensions that there are discrepancies, conflicts, that later commentaries misunderstood suttas, or willfully try to replace or add meaning, and that these modernist theories, after 2.5 millennia, are, for the first time, privy to the "real truth" -- That's conceit, plain and simply -- and so historically and culturally provincial.
robertk wrote:a useful topic:
The attakattha to the Dhammasangani (first book of the Abhidhamma) the Atthasalini, (from the introductory discourse):
"The ancient commentary thereof was sang by the first council, Mahakassapa their leader, and later again by seers, Mahinda bought it to the peerless isle, Ceylon,.."
The ancient Commentary- some/much of it dating to the Buddha's time- was then translated into the Singhala language. Buddhaghosa later translated it back to Pali, with additions and clarifications.

Personally I find the Commentaries invaluable and worthy of great respect.

Re: Comments on "commentary"

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 3:23 am
by Maiev
I agree with you. Suttas are already written in great detail to cover all possible questions and wrong interpretations and they have thousands of pages already.
Whoa, I just said the Commentaries and Sub-Commentaries are not a requirement for understanding the Suttas and I'm rebuked with a wall of text and indirectly called pretentious.
I'm surprised too by how little confidence people have in the suttas compared to the commentaries

Re: Comments on "commentary"

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 3:37 am
by cjmacie
samseva wrote:Whoa, I just said the Commentaries and Sub-Commentaries are not a requirement for understanding the Suttas and I'm rebuked with a wall of text and indirectly called pretentious.
What was said was "This is just not true at all."

And there's millions of pages in the Pali Canon, therefore Pa Auk means "So you need to trace back to all of this to understand the Suttas?"

Any more straw dogs? (re-framing in extreme terms -- "not true AT ALL", "trace to ALL of this")

Say whatever positive it is you mean to say, get on with it. Dressing it in half-blinded reactivity raises doubt as to credibility.

Re: Comments on "commentary"

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 4:26 am
by robertk
Coëmgenu wrote:
robertk wrote:a useful topic:
The attakattha to the Dhammasangani (first book of the Abhidhamma) the Atthasalini, (from the introductory discourse):
"The ancient commentary thereof was sang by the first council, Mahakassapa their leader, and later again by seers, Mahinda bought it to the peerless isle, Ceylon,.."

]

Could you identify a commentary that historians or scholars date back to the Buddha's time please?
Are the places in Buddhaghosa's commentary, with his additions and clarifications, which come principally from this broader, more ancient tradition, clearly demarcated and delineated from Buddhaghosa's specific additions and clarifications? I have never read Buddhaghosa, so I'm asking from a position of legitimate curiosity, not anti-Buddhaghosa bias.
Well scholars are wont to believe half of the Tipitaka was invented by 'later monks' let alone the Commentaries.

I gave the beginning section of the Commentary to the Dhammasangani where Buddhaghosa states that he uses the Great Commentary which was recited alongside the Tipitaka at the first council.
In many sections of many of his Commentaries he refers to the Great Commentary - but not often enough to be certain where he gets every statement (see the postmikenz referred to by Dhammanando for a rough estimate).

I liked your long post on this thread :anjali:

Re: Comments on "commentary"

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 4:38 am
by robertk
Maiev wrote:I agree with you. Suttas are already written in great detail to cover all possible questions and wrong interpretations and they have thousands of pages already.
Whoa, I just said the Commentaries and Sub-Commentaries are not a requirement for understanding the Suttas and I'm rebuked with a wall of text and indirectly called pretentious.
I'm surprised too by how little confidence people have in the suttas compared to the commentaries
The Commentaries never disagree with the suttas, they merely elucidate the meaning.

Re: Comments on "commentary"

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 10:56 am
by Maiev
robertk wrote: The Commentaries never disagree with the suttas, they merely elucidate the meaning.
Have you started by first reading the suttas and then reading the commentaries, or have you first read Visuddhimagga and then later the suttas ?