Commentaries and also sub commentaries. I was watching Maggavihari Thera’s youtube lessons and he seems to always explain something from 2-3 views, based on the commentary, sub-commentary and Abhidhamma. And he says they contradict each other, especially in the video lesson about ear-sensitivity. If they do contradict, I am confused on which one I should believe in.
could you give the link
1 Like
Buddhaghosa in his commentaries referred to other commentaries that had variations to them. He had a method. He was translating them back from sinhalese to pali. His method would report the variations amongst schools and his preference. It was rare for Buddhaghosa to express an opinion. I like his method. Sub commentaries then try to explain the commentaries or include stuff missed in the commentary. The method is that Pali texts have precedence over commentaries which have precedence over sub commentaries. So this is the weighting given to each level of texts, commentary and sub commentaries
2 Likes
bumped
1 Like
I believe it is this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un5tWEpBtys&list=PLdluojKrWhDfVlO8DoEqLH8vF7ZzgkYgX&index=31
Yesterday, I heard his thesis proposal. It will be on the mūlaṭīkā which I think he might mean vibhaṅga-mūlaṭīkā.
He said that there are fundamental core differences, like the length of time of rūpa’s lifespan being 16 mind moments instead of 17. This cascades in many ways. Not only that there are several things to the core that are different. He wants to try to find a way to make them fit within Theravāda. I advised him to do a thesis on education and abhidhamma, but he seems stuck on this topic. He presented it yesterday. I heard his practice lecture which was limited to 10 minutes.
This is one of the core and common problems that I see scholars doing. They are very intelligent, they like to study, and they seem to “run out” of material. They go to other sects, and other languages, like Sanskrit, Prakrit etc. Then they go into comparative analysis, and end up criticising Theravāda. I still see Ven. Maggavihari going that far, but it is a common trait among scholars. Eventually these fringe based studies appear to be “mainstream” to the average or new person.
1 Like