Can someone be a classical Theravādin if they do not accept that all commentaries and sub-commentaries are perfect? Personally, I do really struggle to accept some of what is written in the commentaries. For example, the idea that Pāli is the natural language of all humans (leave a baby in the wood, and if it survives it will naturally speak Pāli).
3 Likes
They can. The necessity is only
- Accepting the “Whole Tipitaka” and
- Giving the priority to the “Ancient Commentary” over Own-opinion (including sub-commentary).
I know even many Classical Theravadins struggle to accept such points, but they still value the Commentary over Own-opinion. So they either keep it for later consideration or try in different ways to understand them.
And there are some minor disagreements even among Commentators about minor points in Commentaries. They are considered “Differences (but) inside the Theravada domain”.
If one is going to doubt either the “Fundamentals” or “Considerable part” of the Commentary, then it will lead him to be dragged out of the Theravada domain.
If one accepts the “Interpretation-fundamentals” of the commentary (let alone the rest), he is technically a Classical Theravadin.
2 Likes
The main thing is not to focus on those things that you yourself find difficult, and to stick with handful of leaves that we have… even though other leaves may be lying around.
Every seldom once in a while I’ll pull a 2+ foot long piece of hair out of my mouth from the food that was cooked for me with love… and then I continue eating from the same bowl.
6 Likes
Some people are more strict than others, but id say yeah. as long as you accept the theravada canon and commentaries, you dont have to believe everything is infallible. Similar with general theravada, some people beleive you qualify if you basically meet the only requirement is being Buddhist and not believing in Mahayana Sutras, others that you have to believe in certain core concepts, and others you have to beleive in certain texts. I feel like you can be a classical theravadin if you accept commentarial authority in general- ranging from complete faith in its infallacy to just beleiving them in general but with varying degrees of faith.
4 Likes
The only things that matter are sila, samadhi, panna. Things like whether pali is a natural language does not matter. So believe it or not, it does not matter. It is better to just ignore stuff like this. With regards to sila, samadhi, panna the commentaries give a significant breath of new knowledge to the contents of the suttas.
Perfect faith can only come from self-realization. Only sotapannas have perfect faith. Knowledge that come from learning need to be balanced by a dose of doubt. Thus we can keep an open mind. Having 100% faith only from learning is called blind faith.
The suttas and commentaries should be regarded like a text book, not a bible. Text books have errors. The important thing is that the knowledge is mostly correct and if we follow it then we will get result.
3 Likes
I believe such concrete things are irrelevant regarding to leave the authority of some thing. This type of acceptance sounds more proper of semitic religions, in where the sacred scriptures should the infallible because are the words from some god. .
Accepting the authority of knowledge doesn’t mean be in agreement with each aspect and word. In example, we accept the authority of a medicine Vademecum despite some things can be old, not right or exact. We take those things by granted in a human production.
When one thinks some aspect sounds too old, not right or convincing, then one can bypass it and that’s all. Rejecting the authority of the whole thing sounds quite absurd.
Why should we reject the authority of the whole thing because the 0.0001% ?
In that type of rejection there is an extreme founamentalism
1 Like
Often in our Pāḷi class we have two phrases.
“Except in gatha (poems)”
“That was the way the baby spoke”
They are meant to be taken light-hearted in a humorous way when we come up with irregular forms. However, if you look at the world religions, you can see that many languages have their roots in Indic languages. Could it be possible? Maybe. “Ma” for mother and na for “no” are quite common. Can we rule these things out 100%? I don’t think so. I think this is where the CT’er comes into play. We don’t totally rule out with 100% some of the widest claims. On the other hand we don’t take things fully to the exact letter when things are very difficult to swallow.
Could the world or even universe be flat? Perhaps if other dimensions beyond 3D are known and “flat” is written with that in mind. Is the world flat from a 3D only perspective? That is a flat out “no”.
2 Likes
Feral child - Wikipedia(%20c.
feral children who missed the window of learning languages, doesn’t seem to pick up language afterwards
1 Like
Just a physics, cosmological perspective, flat means a technical thing in cosmology. And so far as we know, our universe is flat as to require explaination.
There’s 3 possible overall curvature of the universe, they are open, closed, flat. Open is like Pringles or saddle shape, closed is like sphere, flat is familiar, but it’s more like the overall 4D (3 space 1 time) shape of the universe.
A triangle in a open universe has internal angles added up to less than 180 degrees, opposite for the closed one, and exactly 180 degress for a flat universe.
if our universe has any curvature other than flat, due to expansion, it should be obvious by now, but it still looks flat. So it was very flat back near the big bang itself.
2 Likes
For some people they decide the Commentaries are wrong, then the Abhidhamma, then the suttas.
Or some say, “Commentaries are unreliable, I only trust 4 nikaya”. Or “I trust all nikaya except the Digha Nikaya.” or “I trust only the Anguttara nikaya and Samyutta Nikaya”.
Like this one:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn02/sn02.009.piya.html
SN 2.9 PTS: S i 50 CDB i 144
Candima Sutta: The Moon Deity’s Prayer for Protection
translated from the Pali by
Piyadassi TheraThus have I heard:
On one occasion the Blessed One was living near Savatthi, at Jetavana at Anathpindika’s monastery. At that time Candima, the moon deity, was seized by Rahu, lord of Asura. Thereupon calling to mind the Blessed One, Candima, the moon deity, recited this stanza:
i. “O Buddha, the Hero, thou art wholly free from all evil. My adoration to thee. I have fallen into distress. Be thou my refuge.”
Thereupon the Blessed One addressed a stanza to Rahu, Lord of Asuras, on behalf of Candima, thus:
ii. “O Rahu, Candima has gone for refuge to the Tathagata, the Consummate One. Release Candima. The Buddhas radiate compassion on the world (of beings).”
Thereupon Rahu, Lord of Asuras, released Candima, the deity, and immediately came to the presence of Vepacitta, Lord of Asuras, and stood beside him trembling with fear and with hair standing on end. Then Vepacitta addressed Rahu in this stanza.
iii. “Rahu. Why did you suddenly release Candima? Why have you come trembling, and why are you standing here terrified?”
“I have been spoken to by the Buddha in a stanza (requesting me to release Candima). If I had not released Candima my head would have split into seven pieces. While yet I live, I should have had no happiness. (Therefore I released Candima).”
\
according to Sujato:
In a parable of a lunar eclipse, the moon god Candimā is swallowed by the demon lord Rāhu. Candimā appeals to the Buddha, who tells Rāhu to let go…
1 Like
the lunar eclipse sutta is really something one does not wish to present to beginners or those without strong faith.
1 Like
Canda paritta is a standard paritta and in most chanting books.
1 Like
Where is this statement found? It seems intriguing. Can you provide me with the source?
Dear Dhammapala,
Which statement exactly?
Thanks!
1 Like
Regarding the last part, about the Pāli being the natural language of all humans.
Mettā
The Atthasālinī
I feel like it could be tbh. It’s obviously not true that if a human was never exposed to language they would speak Pali, but deva beings, yakkas, brahmas etc. all seem to be able to speak to each other and to humans and i doubt they do it by matching each human region’s dialect. Assuming most oppapatika beings speak the same language, i would expect it to be Pali, and that is probably how they speak to humans. I would guess (purely my own speculation) that in the ancient eras when animals could converse with humans, they also spoke in some kind of mutual language, Pali being the most logical, rather than that animals of the ancient time periods/previous world cycles could simply learn human languages like French or English the way humans do.
2 Likes
I don’t know which part within The Atthasālinī you read this in, but I had read the same statement within Sammohavinodanī on the second book of the Abhidhamma, as follows:
The tradition asserts that the Buddha spoke and taught in Māgadhī, the dialect of the Indian region of Magadha. Furthermore, considering Māgadhabhāsā (our Pāli) as the root language (mūlabhāsā) of all Buddhas and all other beings, it is regarded as the speech of the āriyans (e.g., Sp.i.255). and thereof it if children grow up without being taught any language, they will naturally begin to speak the Magadha language. This language is widespread throughout Niraya, among lower animals, petas, humans, and devas (VibhA.387f).
On the other hand, this part of the commentary pertains to Vibh 15, and this chapter bears the title Paṭisambhidāvibhaṅga (Analytical Knowledge). It affirms the following:
What states are neither-good-nor-bad? At the time when having done, having accumulated bad action, resultant eye consciousness arises, accompanied by indifference, having visible object, :P: ear consciousness arises, accompanied by indifference, having audible object, :P: nose consciousness arises, accompanied by indifference, having odorous object, :P: tongue consciousness arises, accompanied by indifference, having sapid object, :P: body consciousness arises, accompanied by painful feeling, having tangible object; at that time there is contact; there is feeling; there is perception; there is volition; there is consciousness; there is pain; there is one-pointedness of consciousness; there is controlling faculty of mind; there is controlling faculty of pain; there is controlling faculty of vital principle; or whatever other dependently arisen non-material states there are at that time. These states are neither-good-nor-bad. Knowledge of these states is analytic insight of consequence; that philology by which those states are designated; knowledge of the actual philological definition of that (designation) is analytic insight of philology; that knowledge by which he knows those knowledges | thus, “these knowledges clarify this meaning”, knowledge of (these) knowledges is analytic insight of knowledge.
Vibh 15
The Abhidhamma’s explanation of consciousness and mental factors operating at the ultimate level, independent of conventional language designations, provides the foundation for understanding why Māgadhī is the natural language. When consciousness manifests its expressive capacity without external linguistic conditioning, as the Sammohavinodanī demonstrates through the example of a person born in isolation, it naturally does so in Māgadhī. This indicates that Māgadhī most closely corresponds to the actual structure of ultimate reality (paramattha), which explains why it emerges spontaneously when untainted by conventional linguistic influences and why it is the language chosen by all Buddhas to express the Dhamma.
Venerable Bhadantācariya Buddhaghosa remarked that Pāli (By referring to it as Māgadhabhāsā), is “easy to convey the meaning” (atthaṃ āharituṃ sukhaṃ hoti, literally: “it is simple to bring forth the meaning”). He further noted that “as soon as the sound reached the ear, the meaning appeared in countless ways, in myriad forms” (sote pana saṅghaṭṭitamatteyeva nayasatena nayasahassena attho upaṭṭhāti, Vibh-a 718).
This leads us to affirm that Pāli is a “natural language” defined within natural terminology (‘sabhāvanirutti’), as its inherent nature.
the specific point is: What is the obstacle to not accepting this? (Leaving the door open for other matters, here as an example and not limited to it).
The commentaries are infallible; it was recited by the Most Venerable Elder Mahākassapa and the Arahants after him during the First Council. The authority of the commentary is absolute, complete, and supreme. If we denounce their perfection, then we must, in turn, denounce the Mūla itself. For the individuals who recited the commentaries also recite the root text. And what will remain for us to say if we do this?, except that we will fragment the Buddha-Dhamma.
1 Like
The fact that when infants aren’t taught a language they don’t start speaking Pali, contrary to the claim of the commentaries.
There is very little information about cases like this, and the data within the scientific community is contradictory. There is no serious analytical work on this matter; it’s just that everyone shares their views. Some have suggested that the possibility of developing language in a “child” raised in the wild is ‘difficult’ and has many obstacles, but it has not been absolutely denied. Even if cases are found, in most instances, an external linguistic influence is imposed on the child who is taken out of the wild (at a young age in most of the recorded cases), which makes them develop the second language they are exposed to. Therefore, there is nothing certain here, and if you are aware of any research work in this regard, please share it. Therefore, it is truly premature to preemptively classify this as a “fact” when it lacks the quality of being absolute.
1 Like