The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by robertk »

cooran wrote:Hello Retro, Robert, all,


‘’The Jatakas verses are part of the Sutta Pitaka (The Khuddaka Nikaya) of the Pali Canon ...... Jatakas were touched on in a discussion elsewhere, and Jim Anderson (Pali Scholar) supplied the following information there:

"The Jataka (jaataka.m) is part of the Tipitaka and occupies two volumes in print. It consists of verses uttered by the Buddha and would have been recited at the great rehearsals. The Jataka commentary (jaataka.t.thakathaa) which contains the stories that go with the verses take up 10 volumes in a Thai edition. It is traditionally ascribed to Buddhaghosa (as translator & editor). All the verses in the Jataka are also included in the Jataka commentary.

.... some people are under the impression that the Jataka stories are part of the Tipitaka but upon closer examination one will find that the stories in fact belong to the commentary. The Jataka proper is only made up of verses like in the Dhammapada."
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1202" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

with metta
Chris
Yes we know this, could you explain its relevence to the discussion about the Commentaries?
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Robert,
robertk wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:

Spk: People become vexed when they go outside their domain. just as it is outside one's domain to cross a deep body of water while carrying a stone palace on one's head, or to drag the sun and moon off their course, and one would only meet with vexation if one makes the attempt, so too in this case
Now is the Commentator making some deep observation, or is he making a bit of a joke? I strongly suspect the latter.
Why would that be a joke. It is showing the utter futility of trying to go beyond what the Buddha taught about this. People might think they could but they have no more chance of succeeding than dragging the moon off course.
Well, yes, of course. I didn't mean to not take the statement seriously, so perhaps "joke" isn't quite the right expression. Perhaps "hyperbole" or something. My point is that I don't think that one should read those passages as if they are some dry, literal, explanation. Rather, I find it helpful to imagine the commentator talking to me.

Interestingly, cases where I often feel that statements are being taken too literally (and thus "going outside the domain") are in cases where they are being criticised. To me they are all about experience and about how to end dukkha. Sometimes these similes such as marionettes (as in Alex's post) or chariots are interpreted as detailed statements of philosophical positions, which are then demolished... To me, such criticisms often seem to be a misreading of the intention.

Again, if I think of some of these as paraphrases of a spoken talk, they make more sense to me.

:anjali:
Mike
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by Nyana »

robertk wrote:The vimuttimaggga is not a theravada work
The Vimuttimagga may not be a Mahāvihāra work, but it is a Theravāda work. Ven. Arahā Upatissa, the author of the Vimuttimagga, was knowledgeable of and quotes from the Uppaṭipāṭika Sutta, the Paṭisambhidāmagga, the Dhammasaṅgaṇī, the Vibhaṅga, and the Peṭakopadesa. All of these are Theravāda texts.

There are numerous texts such as these which may not be Mahāvihāra works, but they are Theravāda texts. These Yogāvacara teachings were still being practiced in Sri Lanka, Cambodia, and Thailand as recently as the 20th century, and it's possible that they may still be alive in some form somewhere in Cambodia or Thailand today.

All the best,

Geoff
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by Alex123 »

mikenz66 wrote:My point is that I don't think that one should read those passages as if they are some dry, literal, explanation. Rather, I find it helpful to imagine the commentator talking to me.

Interestingly, cases where I often feel that statements are being taken too literally (and thus "going outside the domain") are in cases where they are being criticised. To me they are all about experience and about how to end dukkha. Sometimes these similes such as marionettes (as in Alex's post) or chariots are interpreted as detailed statements of philosophical positions, which are then demolished... To me, such criticisms often seem to be a misreading of the intention.
Same can be said about taking statements such as "One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could the protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery that is hard to gain." -Dhp 160 too literally, as implying that one can control oneself. If that would be the case, I'd never allow painful mental states to occur.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .budd.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by robertk »

retrofuturist wrote:
Therefore relying upon "commentarial stories"
supported by ancient Indian stories and fables
As Mike said, commentarial sources are disparate in their origins - Buddhaghosa and associates are often regarded as editors and translators. Parts may have originally been written by sutta-experts, some by Abhidhamma-experts, some by Vinaya-experts, some by bhavana-experts, some may be from revered story tellers of old who help a captive audience and who attempted to communicate Dhamma
by way of popular
Retro. :)
So the Commentaries , at least the ones that don't reflect your insight into Dhamma, may have been Indian stories and fables told by revered storytellers. Perhaps of the same caliber as Chaucer or Aesop?

Do you have any evidence for this. I mean Buddhaghosa does attribute the Majjhima reciters or Digha reciters for some of the Commenatry, for example, but I don't recollect him saying "and this was an old tale handed down by a great line of story tale reciters".
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Robert,

In response to your question, I linked to the following above, which I think communicates the point I'm trying to make in a non-inflammatory way. This is specific to the Dhammapada Commentaries, but I believe it would be largely applicable to any "story" not found in the Tipitaka itself...
If all the stories go back to the Buddha’s days (which is unlikely, though the traditional view), then the collection could have been made for teaching purposes since many of the tales are both absorbing and instructive. But the random arrangement of the Dhp. itself points to a time when the Buddha’s words were orally transmitted and when a more logical rearrangement would have been difficult. Yet there is some order indeed, for the first verses point to the very heart of the Buddha’s Teaching:

“Mental states are forerun by mind,
Mind is chief, mind-made are they…”

The last chapter of verses on the arahat, the person who is of supreme worth since without any defilements, gives one a clear picture of the final goal reached in this world by patient effort and perseverance. But in between there is a mixture of verses and topics which are arranged more for ease of memorization than anything else.

It is likely that many of the Dhammapada stories do record events that happened in the Buddha’s time, for they often quote from the Suttas or are based on them. In the latter case they always amplify the rather sparse accounts found in the Suttas. Sometimes the process of embroidery can be clearly seen, as when teachings or classifications not known during the Buddha’s lifetime are attributed to him or to that period. Examples of this are the mention of the Three Pitakas (the “baskets” into which the Buddha’s words were arranged), which probably began to be compiled from the time of the First Council onwards; and mention of the two duties (dhura) for monks and nuns, that is, either scholarship (which meant oral repetition of the Buddha’s words to pass them on to the next generation of students) or meditation—a dichotomy not clearly found in the Buddha’s time. Many other examples could be given.

Some of the stories have no counterparts in the Suttas and we do not know where they came from. But as some of them are good stories, well told, conveying the taste of Dhamma, they have been included here. “The Weaver’s Daughter” (No. 24) and the next tale of “A Certain Layman” are noteworthy examples.

The Dhammapada Commentary as we have it now was written down by the great Buddhaghosa and his pupils, nearly fifteen hundred years ago. They converted the collections of stories as found in old Sinhalese, together with the word-commentary explaining the verses, into Pali, which even a thousand years after the Buddha was still a lingua franca. In that language it has remained, preserved on palm-leaf manuscripts, until modern times. The whole work has always been used as an enjoyable and easy text for novices learning the Pali language.

After this brief sketch of the history of the Dhp. stories it might be a good idea to give some hints on how to read them and how not to. They come from a culture far separated from us in time, though if we live in a Buddhist country the “distance” is not so great. However, modern Western-type education is based on very different assumptions from those which lie behind the world of the Dhp. stories, a fact which may make some of them difficult to understand. Stories which I felt would not have much impact now, or which might easily lead to misunderstandings, have been left out of this selection. Even so, the ancient commentators did not hesitate to embroider them with the strange and marvellous, sometimes in the middle of an otherwise straightforward account. In this case I have included the tale thinking that its teaching will be remembered while the embroidery can be forgotten. The purpose of the stories, after all, is to illustrate the Dhamma and to provide memorable incidents which will serve as a pattern for one’s own Dhamma practice. If this is forgotten (as seems to have been the case in later collections of Buddhist legends), then the marvellous takes over and the Dhamma teaching disappears. So when reading these stories it is the Dhamma which is important, not whether the incident concerned really happened. The old commentators were not concerned with history or whether precisely these words were spoken or those things done, but they preserved and passed on these stories as examples: either as warnings of what should not be done, or as encouragements for Dhamma practice. This emphasis needs to be remembered, otherwise a reader with a critical mind, thinking, “That’s impossible,” will miss the real point of the story.
Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by robertk »


The Vimuttimagga may not be a Mahāvihāra work, but it is a Theravāda work. Ven. Arahā Upatissa, the author of the Vimuttimagga, was knowledgeable of and quotes from the Uppaṭipāṭika Sutta, the Paṭisambhidāmagga, the Dhammasaṅgaṇī, the Vibhaṅga, and the Peṭakopadesa. All of these are Theravāda texts.



Geoff

and so were the heretic monks at the time of the third council familiar with the tipitika. Just they wanted to interpret it wrongly or change some points.

From Skilling 171-210, Journal PTS volXX

QUOTE
T
he position of the Vimuttimagga is closer to that of the Vaibhasikas who include all 4 elements in sprastavyayayatana.

A comparison of the Dhammasangani list with that of the Vimuttimagga shows the important difference that the latter adds 3 items : "rupassa jati, vathu rupa and middha." Although the visuddhma attributes the heresy of middhrup to ..some (ekaccanam matena) the tika tells us that this refers to the abhayagirivasins. Thus the inclusion of both middh-rupa in both the Chinese version and the Tibetan
extracts of the Vimuttimagga is evidence that that the Vimutimagga contains classifications that were rejected by the Mahavihara but accepted by the Abhayagiri Skilling concludes that the Vimuttimagga probably came from the Abhayagiri sect. He notes p200 "these are not minor points.
The Mahavamsa notes p267 -268 that the Thera Sanghamitta , who dwelt at the Abhayagiri told the king that the Mahavihara teach a wrong doctrine and so the King made a proclamation telling the populace that they could not feed any monk from the Mahavihara. The good monks thus abandoned it. The Thera then had the King destroy the Mahavihara and "carried away the materials of the buildings hence to the Abhagiri and by means of them many buidings that were borne away from the Mahavihara the Abhayagiri became rich in buildings. Holding fast to his evil friend the Thera Sanghmitta and to his servant Sona the King wrought many a deed of wrong...then by the ruthless Thera Sanghamitta the Abhayagiri-vihara was made stately to see" Earlier p264 it notes that an earlier King helped to purify the sasana by suppression of a heresy he seized bhikkhus dwelling in the Abhayagiri..who had turned to the Vetulya doctrine and were like a throng in the doctrine of the Buddha he excommunciated them." It then notes that the thera sanghamitta (from south India) was embittered against the good bhikkus of the Mahavihara and bided his time until the good king died and the next one Jetthatissa died. Then his time was ripe when the younger brother of Jetthatissa (Mahasena ) came to power.
meindzai
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by meindzai »

daverupa wrote:
What are the problems with this approach?
As perfectly as the Buddha taught, he did so in a particular time and place. When you are very close to the Suttas it's easy to forget that they are 2600 years old. Two thousand, six hundred (the number looks more staggering to me when I spell it out.) In a land "far far away." I find even modern Indian culture difficult to understand, how much more so ancient India.

We are in such a completely different time and culture that the Commentaries often prove invaluable for helping clarify these temporal and cultural differences. Of course, a lot of time has passed since the commentaries, so we still have this same difficulty in understanding them. But for me this is where the values of commentaries has been, and I've relied on them really through teachers and not direct readings since they are not as easily accessible.

-M
User avatar
legolas
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:58 am

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by legolas »

meindzai wrote:
daverupa wrote:
What are the problems with this approach?
As perfectly as the Buddha taught, he did so in a particular time and place. When you are very close to the Suttas it's easy to forget that they are 2600 years old. Two thousand, six hundred (the number looks more staggering to me when I spell it out.) In a land "far far away." I find even modern Indian culture difficult to understand, how much more so ancient India.

We are in such a completely different time and culture that the Commentaries often prove invaluable for helping clarify these temporal and cultural differences. Of course, a lot of time has passed since the commentaries, so we still have this same difficulty in understanding them. But for me this is where the values of commentaries has been, and I've relied on them really through teachers and not direct readings since they are not as easily accessible.

-M
This argument does not really hold water. One could easily say the commentaries were written long ago in a land far far away. A point that I have noticed that is so smoothly sidestepped by commentarial lovers is that the suttas are the Buddha's words - I'm sorry I feel I should repeat that THE SUTTA'S ARE THE BUDDHA'S WORDS. Now I do not deny that translators of the sutta's can have an effect on people's understandings, however we have a good cross section of translations and we can gain an understanding of the sutta's (with effort & discrimination). The extent of commentarial works and their variance with the suttas, highlight an important point. Either the Buddha was an incompetent teacher, requiring vast amounts of commentary from more erudite scholars who could see what the Buddha really meant to say OR - the Buddha was the highest being, PEERLESS teacher of men, who left the sutta/vinaya for the world to use to escape their suffering and did this with an open hand- a teaching which would last the millenia, with no need for people to recreate the meaning of the sutta's.
meindzai
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by meindzai »

legolas wrote:
This argument does not really hold water. One could easily say the commentaries were written long ago in a land far far away. A point that I have noticed that is so smoothly sidestepped by commentarial lovers is that the suttas are the Buddha's words - I'm sorry I feel I should repeat that THE SUTTA'S ARE THE BUDDHA'S WORDS.
Actually not one person, including Robert (who is defending the commentaries) has disputed this.

And I think you are pegging people too sharply into categories here. "Commentarial lovers?" Really?
The extent of commentarial works and their variance with the suttas, highlight an important point. Either the Buddha was an incompetent teacher, requiring vast amounts of commentary from more erudite scholars who could see what the Buddha really meant to say
The existence of the commentaries do not imply this any more than commentary on any other kind of literature implies incompetence on part of the author. Commentary on Dante's Inferno doesn't imply that Dante didn't get his point across, it simply gives us some guidance and clarification. Commentary on the Suttas helps us bridge the gap between our modern perceptions and a different time and culture. I do not deny that there is another gap between us and the commentaries.
OR - the Buddha was the highest being, PEERLESS teacher of men, who left the sutta/vinaya for the world to use to escape their suffering and did this with an open hand- a teaching which would last the millenia, with no need for people to recreate the meaning of the sutta's.
You are supremely wise if you can understand the Suttas without any guidance from books, teachers, discussion, etc. If that's the case then you are to be commended. But the rest of us dolts appreciate whatever assistance we can get in "unpacking" the meaning (as Cooran has pointed out many times) of the Suttas. This does not equate to putting them on the same level as the Suttas, which I think yields too many dissonances to be useful for practice.

-M
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by tiltbillings »

robertk wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:How about the monks that killed themselves after being given the practice of the repulsiveness of the body by the Buddha. After giving that subject for meditation, the Buddha goes on retreat for a time, comes back to find sangha a bit thinned out. Now, the commentary gives an unbelievably silly story about that and Ven Bodhi to his credit does not seem to buy it. SN V 320-22 CDB 1773-4.

p 1951 of Bodhi: anapanasamyutta commentary (Bodhi)SPK: ""why did he[buddha]
speak thus?[saying that he was going into seclusion for 2 weeks]? In
the past, it is said, five hundred men earned their living as hunters.
They were reborn in hell, but later, through some good kamma , took
birth as human and went forth as monks..However, a portion of their
original bad kamma had gained the opportunity to ripen during this
fortnight and was due to bring on their deaths both by suicide and
homicide. The blessed one foresaw this and realized he could do nothing
about it.....Among those monks some were wordling some were sotapanna,
some sakaadgami, some anagamai
The Buddha spoke of foulness to remove their attachment to the body so
they would lose their fear of death and could thus be reborn in
heaven. ..he went into seclusion to avoid being present when destiny
took its toll."""


Doesn't that prove how vital the Commentaries are to understand what really happened. The Buddha is SammasamBuddha- he has knowledge of all of this. He asked Ananda what had happened not becuase he didn't know but because sometimes Buddha's ask questions in order to introduce a teaching.
"Doesn't that prove how vital the Commentaries are" Not really. It shows how convoluted the commentaries can be in trying to explain away difficulties in the suttas.

Bodhi's dismisal of this Commentary is as telling as his support of those bhikkhunis ordained from a chinese lineage being called Theravada- he really doesn't believe the Theravada is the heir of the Dhamma- they are as liable to introduce porkies and tell outright lies, as their Mahayana cousins so he apparently thinks..
Ven Bodhi. There is no argument in this statement; just ad hominem.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Assaji
Posts: 2106
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by Assaji »

Hi Robert,
Bodhi's dismisal of this Commentary is as telling as his support of those bhikkhunis ordained from a chinese lineage being called Theravada
Offtopic, just to clarify things a bit:
http://www.dhammalight.com/corresponden ... _06_B.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Best wishes, Dmytro
User avatar
legolas
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:58 am

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by legolas »

meindzai wrote:
legolas wrote:
This argument does not really hold water. One could easily say the commentaries were written long ago in a land far far away. A point that I have noticed that is so smoothly sidestepped by commentarial lovers is that the suttas are the Buddha's words - I'm sorry I feel I should repeat that THE SUTTA'S ARE THE BUDDHA'S WORDS.
Actually not one person, including Robert (who is defending the commentaries) has disputed this.

And I think you are pegging people too sharply into categories here. "Commentarial lovers?" Really?
The extent of commentarial works and their variance with the suttas, highlight an important point. Either the Buddha was an incompetent teacher, requiring vast amounts of commentary from more erudite scholars who could see what the Buddha really meant to say
The existence of the commentaries do not imply this any more than commentary on any other kind of literature implies incompetence on part of the author. Commentary on Dante's Inferno doesn't imply that Dante didn't get his point across, it simply gives us some guidance and clarification. Commentary on the Suttas helps us bridge the gap between our modern perceptions and a different time and culture. I do not deny that there is another gap between us and the commentaries.
OR - the Buddha was the highest being, PEERLESS teacher of men, who left the sutta/vinaya for the world to use to escape their suffering and did this with an open hand- a teaching which would last the millenia, with no need for people to recreate the meaning of the sutta's.
You are supremely wise if you can understand the Suttas without any guidance from books, teachers, discussion, etc. If that's the case then you are to be commended. But the rest of us dolts appreciate whatever assistance we can get in "unpacking" the meaning (as Cooran has pointed out many times) of the Suttas. This does not equate to putting them on the same level as the Suttas, which I think yields too many dissonances to be useful for practice.

-M
Hi,

You are attributing to me, claims I have not made. My understanding of the suttas comes through real live teachers. A big part of the effort & discrimination I mentioned is in listening to and visiting teachers. I do not rely on age old commentaries that appear to me, to be at odds with the suttas. The idea that our perceptions/time/culture etc. would have a real impact on our understanding of the suttas seems strange. There may be the odd cultural thing in the suttas, but for the most part I see the suttas as timeless. The comparison with Dante does not really hold up. The sheer volume of the commentaries indicates more than mere guidance and clarification (as if the Buddha needed to be clarified).
meindzai
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by meindzai »

legolas wrote: You are attributing to me, claims I have not made.
Ok, then we'll proceed to the dubious claims you make here.
My understanding of the suttas comes through real live teachers. A big part of the effort & discrimination I mentioned is in listening to and visiting teachers.
Who no doubt are familiar with the commentaries if they are teaching and talking about them.
I do not rely on age old commentaries that appear to me, to be at odds with the suttas.
No, only on teachers who use. They are not "add odds" with the suttas. There are occasional discrepencies, and finding and discussing these is a big part of Theravada Study, especially amongst monks and scholars, who then use that process of clarification in their dealings with us.
The sheer volume
Is a result of the sheer volume:

Image

of the Canon itself, and the fact that there have been 2600 years to comment on it.

-M
User avatar
legolas
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:58 am

Re: The Commentaries are unreliable: I know better

Post by legolas »

meindzai wrote:
legolas wrote: You are attributing to me, claims I have not made.
Ok, then we'll proceed to the dubious claims you make here.
My understanding of the suttas comes through real live teachers. A big part of the effort & discrimination I mentioned is in listening to and visiting teachers.
Who no doubt are familiar with the commentaries if they are teaching and talking about them.
I do not rely on age old commentaries that appear to me, to be at odds with the suttas.
No, only on teachers who use. They are not "add odds" with the suttas. There are occasional discrepencies, and finding and discussing these is a big part of Theravada Study, especially amongst monks and scholars, who then use that process of clarification in their dealings with us.
The sheer volume
Is a result of the sheer volume:

Image

of the Canon itself, and the fact that there have been 2600 years to comment on it.

-M
My teachers are familiar with the commentaries but either choose not to refer to them or do so only tangentially, they do not refer to them when important doctrinal issues arise.
You say they are not at odds with the suttas :-

access/momentary concentration
dry insight
nana knowledges
atomism
path/fruit discrepancies
definition of bodhisatta
definition of jhana
no mention of "Abhidhamma teachings" in suttas (closed fist teaching)
Each one of these has been debated long and hard elsewhere, my point is that to a lot of people including myself find these teachings are not compatible with the suttas. I personally think that the "clarification" you talk of is a little bit suspect. I would much rather have any "clarification" come from a real live teacher who I can question and who does not place his reliance and faith in works that are far removed from the original teachings.

BTW that is a nice picture of the scriptures. Do you know how much of the cabinet is taken up by the suttas?
Post Reply