Page 1 of 4

Approaching traditional Theravada Commentaries with caution

Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:34 pm
by Ceisiwr
[SPLIT TOPIC - decoupled from "in the commentaries"... where? ( http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=978" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ) in the Classical Theravada forum - Retro.]

My advice would be to read them with caution, although they do correctly elaborate on certain points, other times they can be wrong


:anjali:

Re: "in the commentaries"... where?

Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:40 pm
by tiltbillings
clw_uk wrote:My advice would be to read them with caution, although they do correctly elaborate on certain points, other times they can be wrong
While might have reason to disagree with the commentaries, it should not be done lightly. In other words there needs to be good, reasoned and exampled cause for doing so.

Re: "in the commentaries"... where?

Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:55 pm
by Ceisiwr
tiltbillings wrote:
clw_uk wrote:My advice would be to read them with caution, although they do correctly elaborate on certain points, other times they can be wrong
While might have reason to disagree with the commentaries, it should not be done lightly. In other words there needs to be good, reasoned and exampled cause for doing so.


I agree, i was merely suggesting that one have caution when reading them, they might not be accurate

Re: "in the commentaries"... where?

Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:09 pm
by mikenz66
clw_uk wrote: I agree, i was merely suggesting that one have caution when reading them, they might not be accurate
This may be true but I would advise being even more careful with arguments made in ignorance of the Commentaries.

Metta
Mike

Re: "in the commentaries"... where?

Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:10 pm
by tiltbillings
they might not be accurate
And upon what basis do you determine that?

Re: "in the commentaries"... where?

Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:58 pm
by Ceisiwr
they might not be accurate

And upon what basis do you determine that?

Each commentary needs to be approached with caution because they are not the words of the Buddha but of later disciples that may still have had unknowing in them


Its not to say they are worthless, i have found that some have very good explanations as well as some that were not so good, each commentary should be investigated and compared with ones own experience and with what the suttas say etc


:anjali:

Re: "in the commentaries"... where?

Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:10 pm
by tiltbillings
clw_uk wrote:
they might not be accurate

And upon what basis do you determine that?

Each commentary needs to be approached with caution because they are not the words of the Buddha but of later disciples that may still have had unknowing in them
Unknowing in them. That maybe, particularly in terms of modern history, but I would take the commentaries far more seriously in terms of doctrinal matters than I would most of the rebirth deniers I have seen who seem to have a great deal of "unknowing in them."

Re: "in the commentaries"... where?

Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:13 pm
by Ceisiwr
Unknowing in them. That maybe, particularly in terms of modern history, but I would take the commentaries far more seriously in terms of doctrinal matters than I would most of the rebirth deniers I have seen who seem to have a great deal of "unknowing in them."


Why does rebirth denial come into this :?

Re: "in the commentaries"... where?

Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:17 pm
by tiltbillings
Why does rebirth denial come into this
It is a good example of the problem discussed.

Re: "in the commentaries"... where?

Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:20 pm
by Ceisiwr
tiltbillings wrote:
Why does rebirth denial come into this
It is a good example of the problem discussed.

Do you mean that the unknowing in the person could cause them to miss what the commentary is saying?

Re: "in the commentaries"... where?

Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:24 pm
by Ben
Hi Craig

I'm interested to know what qualifies you to criticise the commentaries?
Are you intimately familiar with them? Are you so highly realised yourself that you can discern error of view in the commentarial authors?

B

Re: "in the commentaries"... where?

Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:26 pm
by Ceisiwr
Ben wrote:Hi Craig

I'm interested to know what qualifies you to criticise the commentaries?
Are you intimately familiar with them? Are you so highly realised yourself that you can discern error of view in the commentarial authors?

B


I havent, all i did was offer some friendly advice, whats wrong in advising someone to have some caution or healty skepticism when reading them?

Re: "in the commentaries"... where?

Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:34 pm
by mikenz66
clw_uk wrote: Why does rebirth denial come into this :?
Perhaps because the Commentaries are quite clear about it, but a common argument that one hears is that the "serious Suttas" don't talk about literal rebirth.

Another example would be Anatta, where the Commentaries (as quoted in the Visuddhimagga) seem quite clear that you won't find a self anywhere. For example:
"For there is suffering, but none who suffers;
Doing exists although there is no doer;
Extinction is but no extinguished person;
Although there is a path, there is no goer."

Visuddhimagga, XVI, 90.
However, the Suttas never quite seem to deny a "self outside the khandas", something Thanissaro Bhikkhu, for example, makes a lot of with his "not-self strategy" idea that permeates his writing and translations:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... tself.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I do, of course, have a lot of respect for Ven Thanissaro. He's perhaps a good example of someone who has looked carefully and sincerely and rejected certain parts of the standard Theravada in favour of his readings and experience. However, whether or not one agrees with him, I think that it is important to realise that his translation on Access to Insight have his particular opinions embedded. And unlike Bhikkhu Bodhi he is not always clear where he differs from the Commentaries. Bhikkhu Bodhi is always at great pains to state: "The commentary says X, I disagree because of Y".

Metta
Mike

Re: "in the commentaries"... where?

Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:38 pm
by retrofuturist
Greetings,

Once back at E-Sangha, venerable Dhammanando provided a "priority list" sourced from the commentaries themselves which showed the respective priority that certain sources of information (e.g. Suttas, Vinaya, Abhidhamma, Commentaries, other opinion) should be afforded. The list is of course self-referential with respect the commentaries (which may not make it entirely objective, or at worst, an attempt to establish an intellectual monopoly) but it would be good if venerable Dhammanando would be able to repost that list here, so we can understand how to, from a Classical Theravada perspective, prioritise different sources of Buddhist information.

Metta,
Retro. :)

Re: "in the commentaries"... where?

Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:44 pm
by Ceisiwr
Well the main points i disagree with the commentaries on comes from meditation, the instructions in the Visuddhimagga to mindfulness of breathing held me back, it was only when i looked just at the sutta (and some teachings from Ven. U Vimalaramsi) did i make progress and now when looking back at the Visuddhimagga instructions it doesnt correspond much with my meditation exp.



However the instructions on loving-kindness did help


Now of course this is in reguards to meditation so it is probably down to one technique not working while another one does but it does show how they must be approached with caution, which is all i ever said


In reguards to doctrine they hit the mark except on some points that i personally disagree with