tiltbillings wrote:I have no problem with the authority of the "early" exegetical texts, but I do not see them as being the necessary final word on what is found in the suttas, and I have yet to see anyone here make an actual case that the suttas must, without question in all cases, be filtered through the "early Pali exegetical texts" to truly understand what they are saying.
Did I say that these texts are necessary the final word?
I will repeat - I mostly draw upon the earliest possible Pali sources. The earlier the text, the more reliable it is. If the suttas don't give a clearcut definition of something, then the next best choice are early exegetical texts. After that, the next choice is Atthakatha, etc. The modern works are usually least reliable.
So clearly there's a difference in our referential bases.
Since the suttas are quite laconic, there's necessarily a filter for their full understanding - be it Pali-English dictionary, early exegetical works, or just trendy guesswork.
It's better to choose the filters with care.
And certainly neither you nor Geoff have presented a reasonable counter argument to what I have presented, which is that in the suttas the Buddha taught that bodhi, awakening, he attained we can attain.
Did I present a counter argument? I pointed out a contradiction in the Ven. Bodhi's passage you quoted.
Surely we can attain bodhi, as defined in Niddesa, but that would be only a part of the Samma-sambodhi of the Buddha.