Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:15 pm
I can't tell whether or not my logic makes a misstep here:
If the Suttas are sufficient for the practice of the Dhamma then the Commentarial authors are superfluous (to a greater or lesser degree - at the very most they are equivalent to modern monastic authors).
Now, if the Suttas are not sufficient for the practice of the Dhamma then no one could have been practicing the Dhamma before the Commentaries were composed, which is tantamount to saying either that the Buddha taught incompletely or that the memorization of essential Dhamma failed in very short order after the Parinibbana, requiring a later Commentarial reconstruction of essentials. It seems the only possible assertion which avoids either conclusion is that there was an oral tradition alongside the oral tradition of the Suttas which came to be reflected in the Commentaries. However, the onus of proof is to show that such a thing is the case, which seems highly unlikely - the Abhidhamma was once held to be original to the Buddha, for example, and if it was it would be important to study. It isn't, however, and the Commentaries are later still.
Given this, I give a solid nod to the Commentaries for being a raft to modern translations... and I set that raft aside.
What are the problems with this approach?
If the Suttas are sufficient for the practice of the Dhamma then the Commentarial authors are superfluous (to a greater or lesser degree - at the very most they are equivalent to modern monastic authors).
Now, if the Suttas are not sufficient for the practice of the Dhamma then no one could have been practicing the Dhamma before the Commentaries were composed, which is tantamount to saying either that the Buddha taught incompletely or that the memorization of essential Dhamma failed in very short order after the Parinibbana, requiring a later Commentarial reconstruction of essentials. It seems the only possible assertion which avoids either conclusion is that there was an oral tradition alongside the oral tradition of the Suttas which came to be reflected in the Commentaries. However, the onus of proof is to show that such a thing is the case, which seems highly unlikely - the Abhidhamma was once held to be original to the Buddha, for example, and if it was it would be important to study. It isn't, however, and the Commentaries are later still.
Given this, I give a solid nod to the Commentaries for being a raft to modern translations... and I set that raft aside.
What are the problems with this approach?