Page 1 of 7

The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:14 am
by robertk
A member here wrote this damning putdown:
The commentaries and the Visuddhimagga are not canonical. Moreover, the commentaries do not present a homogeneous doctrine. It's not uncommon to find multiple opinions presented regarding a particular canonical passage, etc. It's also not uncommon to find quite dubious etymologies of particular terms and an obvious lack of understanding of canonical metaphors, and so on. This is due to the commentaries being authored by people separated from the historical, geographical, and cultural situation of the early Buddhist community. This has been well documented by a number of translators and scholars. Thereforewhile there commentaries are also important, they aren't of the same caliber as the Tipiṭaka.
Could I ask for some evidence of their lack of homogeneous content.

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:17 am
by retrofuturist
Greetings Robert,
robertk wrote:Could I ask for some evidence of their lack of homogeneous content.
I'm not au fait with the specifics (as I've only read one of the two texts cover-to-cover) but supposedly the Vimuttimagga and Visuddhimagga are not always in in alignment, despite the latter being in some way apparently modelled upon the former.

Metta,
Retro. :)

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:20 am
by cooran
Hello Robert,

Could you please give a link to the post in question so that we can all see the context?

with metta
Chris

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:24 am
by tiltbillings
Sadly, very few actual commentaries are available in English, which makes for assessing them difficult for the non-Pali reader. I am too damned tired and sick at the moment to do any research, but a general comment about the commentaries is worthwhile. That differing opionion are expressed would simply be the nature of commentaries and sub-commentaries, etc., given that they are written by people of various levels of understanding over over long periods.

I certainly would not dismiss commemntaries, but they may not be the final word on a subject. They are important.

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:27 am
by BlackBird
I think that's a valid statement, why regard it as putdown? I'd probably be harsher than that if caught off guard. Don't forget the generous qualifier: 'Thereforewhile there commentaries are also important, they aren't of the same caliber as the Tipiṭaka.'

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:30 am
by retrofuturist
Greetings,

There's potential for this one to go off-topic very quickly, so please bear in mind the guidelines to this sub-forum.

If you don't know what they are, please review them before posting... http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=373" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks.

Metta,
Retro. :)

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:34 am
by BlackBird
OP wrote: they aren't of the same caliber as the Tipiṭaka.[/i]'
I would tend to agree, the Buddha never spoke the commentaries. So comparing the word of a Tathagata to a commentator one will naturally arrive at the conclusion that the commentators word isn't of the same caliber. The decision to take offense to such a judgement is purely gratuitous when placed in it's proper context.

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:46 am
by Nyana
robertk wrote:A member here wrote this damning putdown
LOL.... You never fail to crack me up Robert.
robertk wrote:Could I ask for some evidence of their lack of homogeneous content.
I have no interest in discussing the commentaries, especially within this particular sub-forum. Some discussion has occurred on this thread:

Reliability of Mahāvihāra Commentaries?... Right View.

All the best,

Geoff

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:57 am
by PeterB
robertk wrote:A member here wrote this damning putdown:
The commentaries and the Visuddhimagga are not canonical. Moreover, the commentaries do not present a homogeneous doctrine. It's not uncommon to find multiple opinions presented regarding a particular canonical passage, etc. It's also not uncommon to find quite dubious etymologies of particular terms and an obvious lack of understanding of canonical metaphors, and so on. This is due to the commentaries being authored by people separated from the historical, geographical, and cultural situation of the early Buddhist community. This has been well documented by a number of translators and scholars. Thereforewhile there commentaries are also important, they aren't of the same caliber as the Tipiṭaka.
Could I ask for some evidence of their lack of homogeneous content.
I dont think its damning. I dont think its a put down. And I dont think its deniable.

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:18 am
by cooran
cooran wrote:Hello Robert,

Could you please give a link to the post in question so that we can all see the context?
O.K. - I'll post the link for you:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 19#p119970" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

with metta
Chris

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:37 am
by robertk
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Robert,
robertk wrote:Could I ask for some evidence of their lack of homogeneous content.
I'm not au fait with the specifics (as I've only read one of the two texts cover-to-cover) but supposedly the Vimuttimagga and Visuddhimagga are not always in in alignment, despite the latter being in some way apparently modelled upon the former.

Metta,
Retro. :)
The vimuttimaggga is not a theravada work and the only comments on it by buddhaghosa that I am aware of are when he specifies a few of it's non- orthodox ideas.

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:46 am
by robertk
PeterB wrote:
robertk wrote:A member here wrote this damning putdown:
It's also not uncommon to find quite dubious etymologies of particular terms and an obvious lack of understanding of canonical metaphors, and so on.
Could I ask for some evidence of their lack of homogeneous content.
I dont think its damning. I dont think its a put down. And I dont think its deniable.
You think that saying " their obvious lack of understanding" is no putdown.
Perhaps you could detail some of these obvious cases for me ...

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:20 pm
by robertk
Can anyone who agrees with the comments made by the member quoted in the opening post give any examples of these failings in the Commentaries?

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:55 pm
by Assaji
robertk wrote:Can anyone who agrees with the comments made by the member quoted in the opening post give any examples of these failings in the Commentaries?
I don't like wholesale labeling of multifaceted things. The Commentaries are indeed a very rich field with high variety of viewpoints, and are not just either faulty or faultless.

For particular instances, and a good analysis, I would recommend the notes to the translations by Bhikkhu Bodhi.

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:01 pm
by mikenz66
Hi Dmytro,
Dmytro wrote:
robertk wrote:Can anyone who agrees with the comments made by the member quoted in the opening post give any examples of these failings in the Commentaries?
I don't like wholesale labeling of multifaceted things. The Commentaries are indeed a very rich field with high variety of viewpoints, and are not just either faulty or faultless.

For particular instances, and a good analysis, I would recommend the notes to the translations by Bhikkhu Bodhi.
Certainly. I understand the Classical Theravada approach to be that Tipitaka has precedence over Commentary, so the analysis of scholars such as Bhikkhu Bodhi that discusses apparent contradictions between the two are an important part of developing our understanding of Theravada.

See also Geoff's comments here: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 34#p120047" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

:anjali:
Mike