Even the Attanomati is higher than Non-Theravada Suttas or Interpretations

This is a possibility yes, because that’s what the suttavibhanga is in, all likelihood. Can you demonstrate the contrary?

So which is it? The Atthakathā of Sutta, Vinaya, and Abhidhamma is acariyavada or is it attanoma? Because the text clearly says it is the latter. It can’t be both, or the commentary is just nonsense.
[edit : are you saying that the commentary is divided in 3 parts 1) what it believes to be the words of arahants at the first council 2) opinions of contemporary theras 3) Buddhagosa’s opinions and that acariyavada is meant to refer to 1) while attanoma is meant to refer to 2) and 3)?]

Well we just put the finger on one.

So we have to trust the personal opinion of Buddhagosa that what he writes is verbatim what the arahants said at the first council. Given the self contradiction above, I think circumspection is in order.

There are people in this world who don’t accept everything blindly out of faith. They can never be convinced by mere assertions of faith. You need to demonstrate that what the commentary says is historically accurate and not just the belief at the time.

1 Like

I think my previous answer is explicit enough😊…

Ok, i think i was not clear enough. I will therefore quote the Tipitaka expert Mingun Sayadaw who was well know for his deep scolarship, in his book " The Great chronicles of Buddha" this is how he explained it (taking mainly from Mahaparinibbāna Atthakathā ):

"The Four Vinayas

-Sutta: here refers to the Three Piṭakas

-Suttānuloma: the four Mahāpadesas (Great Authorities) described in the Vinaya and the four Mahāpadesas described in the Suttanta.

-Ācariyavāda: miscellaneous exposition in elucidation of the doctrines of the Buddha that were made even during His lifetime at different places. Since they explain the Pāli texts, they were also called Commentaries (aṭṭhakathā). At the great Councils, the bhikkhu-elders recited the Pāli first and at the end of it, they prescribed the respective Commentaries to each division of the texts as the regular syllabus for elucidation. These learned sayings which were miscellaneous discourses as well as Commentaries, being written by learned teachers, come to be known also as Ācariyavāda. These learned observations or treatises which are referred to by three different names, which are Ācariyavāda, Aṭṭhakathā, Pakiṇṇakadesanā, were carried by the Venerable Mahinda.The Sri Lanka bhikkhu-elders translated them into Sinhalese to ensure, for Sinhalese bhikkhus, the tradition against doctrines that might be introduced by other sects later. The Venerable [Mahā] Buddhaghosa studied the Sinhalese Aṭṭhakathā, the Mūḷacleared up repetitive statements and condensed them wherever suitable, classified them under suitable headings which were appropriate to the texts, elucidating wherever necessary, and thereby produced a new Commentary in Māgadī, adding the traditional views held by bhikkhu-elder (Theravāda)which came to be called ‘own views’ (attanomati), wherever necessary. Thus, Ācariyavāda, the third of the four Vinayas, is for practical purposes as used today, refers to (This new) Commentary.

Attanomati: this is a reference to the ‘own views’ i.e. considered opinions held by bhikkhu-elders after following the principles contained in the Sutta, Suttanuloma and Ācariyavāda. Attanomate is also known as Theravāda, the doctrines upheld traditionally by bhikkhu-elders. Thus these four Vinayas are Sutta, Suttānuloma, Ācariyavāda and Attanomati, should be noted…"

1 Like

That’s interesting. There may indeed have been a misunderstanding. I will try and follow up on this

1 Like

This is by studying carefully and respectfully correct teachings that we can increase a faith wich is " accompanied by knowledge “, ñāna sampayutta… In this way our faith increase because we recognize more and more the teaching…
We are not scientists, to " demonstrate” is not the point, we have to understand with wisdom…otherwise better to study with scientists on nde cases…
But Buddha ’ s disciple have faith.
Dhamma is not science. Without faith faculty, saddhā indriya, one can not grow up in wholesome qualities, one can not develop samādhi, can not do proper vipassanā… This point is important. Dhamma seeds without faith is like a dry land, the seeds can not grow up… It is better to look our lineage with great faith and respect, it will help understanding and increase our wholesome qualities🙂…

2 Likes

MN 76

A sensible person reflects on this matter in this way: ‘This teacher takes oral transmission to be the truth. He teaches by oral transmission, by the lineage of testament, by canonical authority. But when a teacher takes oral transmission to be the truth, some of that is well learned, some poorly learned, some true, and some otherwise. This spiritual life is unreliable.’

As Buddha sāvaka we know the Buddha ’ s words arethe Truth and the Arahant words are the Truth.

We don’t need to take a small quote in order to interpret in the way to fit our views… like this one or kalama sutta sutta to reject the authority of the Triple Gems… Buddha ’ s disciple rely on faith, Bhante, wathever the ay you look at it it is like that.
Look, you are ordained, and you will have Upasampadā ordination soon… Based on your faith.

On what are based the Vinaya kamma Bhante? Not only on mūla, but on commentaries as well… Based on the transmission of the teachings. The suttas, are know, together with pāli because commentaries.

So we can be respectful and grateful wich are good qualities. We should respect our lineage, they have protected Dhamma… We have Dhamma because of them. To be grateful is important.

For understanding, to study carefully is necessary.

But it is a vast topic and im not going to say more on this discussion… Arguments are harmful for me and i like to avoid it.
I prefer rely on my faith, with the help of my kalyānamittaand teachers to study and practice this golden Dhamma…
Okāsa vandāmi Bhante🙏
Theruwan Saranayi :gem::gem::gem:

We don’t until we become sotapannas. And even then we can’t tell exactly what is Buddha Vacana and what isn’t. Only if something is clearly contrary to the Dhamma. Let us not overstate our abilities and let’s remain humble.

We do need to be respectful and heed the advice of the suttas and avoid rejecting it when it doesn’t suit us.

Yes I agree, but some people happen to draw a distinction between respecting, being grateful and following blindly without doing our due diligence as regards to the Truth.

We also need to be humble and recognize what we truly know from what we take on faith.

:pray:

It is not helpful at all.

What is not helpful, and why?

Thanks for the excellent explanations Matthias.

1 Like

SN 20.7

Bhavissanti bhikkhū anāgatam·addhānaṃ, ye te suttantā tathāgata·bhāsitā gambhīrā gambhīr·atthā lok·uttarā suññata·p·paṭisaṃyuttā, tesu bhaññamānesu na sussūsissanti na sotaṃ odahissanti na aññā cittaṃ upaṭṭhāpessanti na ca te dhamme uggahetabbaṃ pariyāpuṇitabbaṃ maññissanti.
In future time, there will be bhikkhus who will not listen to the utterance of such discourses which are words of the Tathāgata, profound, profound in meaning, leading beyond the world, (consistently) connected with emptiness, they will not lend ear, they will not apply their mind on knowledge, they will not consider those teachings as to be taken up and mastered.

Ye pana te suttantā kavi·katā kāveyyā citta·kkharā citta·byañjanā bāhirakā sāvaka·bhāsitā , tesu bhaññamānesu sussūsissanti, sotaṃ odahissanti, aññā cittaṃ upaṭṭhāpessanti, te ca dhamme uggahetabbaṃ pariyāpuṇitabbaṃ maññissanti.
On the contrary, they will listen to the utterance of such discourses which are literary compositions made by poets, witty words, witty letters, by people from outside, or the words of disciples , they will lend ear, they will apply their mind on knowledge, they will consider those teachings as to be taken up and mastered.

Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, evaṃ sikkhitabbaṃ: ‘ye te suttantā tathāgata·bhāsitā gambhīrā gambhīr·atthā lok·uttarā suññata·p·paṭisaṃyuttā, tesu bhaññamānesu sussūsissāma, sotaṃ odahissāma, aññā cittaṃ upaṭṭhāpessāma, te ca dhamme uggahetabbaṃ pariyāpuṇitabbaṃ maññissāmā’ti. Evañhi vo, bhikkhave, sikkhitabbanti.
Therefore, bhikkhus, you should train thus: ‘We will listen to the utterance of such discourses which are words of the Tathāgata, profound, profound in meaning, leading beyond the world, (consistently) connected with emptiness, we will lend ear, we will apply our mind on knowledge, we will consider those teachings as to be taken up and mastered.’ This is how, bhikkhus, you should train yourselves.

4 Likes

If so, why aren’t they be careful and humble enough not to readily disparage the opinions of the Atthakata?

Technically it is Attanomati.

In venerable Buddhaghosa’s view as well. (but not about the fundamentals, interpretations and the vast majority part of the commentary)

Why don’t they understand that this approach is “Takka” or “naya” “Akaraparivitakka” according to the Kalama sutta. (and Attanomati as well)

So Attanomati.

Still Pure Attanomati as well as “Takka, Naya, Akaraparivitakka”.

Yes, it is not beneficial to feed additional doubts to innate doubters unless in the cases where it is unavoidable.

Modern highly deluded generation can hardly recognize the value of the faith faculty. Faith is a “Bala / Indriya” which is necessary along with the Wisdom.

Yes bhante, faith is something to be maintained and developed.

Even the venerable Buddhaghosa doesn’t see it as 100% flawless, but he believes the Theories/Interpretations and the Body is flawless.

This is what happens if someone believes the Modern English Interpreters.

Definition of the term Theravada is “Opinions of the Elders” (like Mahasumma and Mahapaduma theras) which are added to the Atthakata. It is technically Attanomati. Ven. Buddhaghosa clearly mentions it in the beginning of the Samantapasadika.

Theravada-school is something else.

How is it reasonable?

  • The work venerable Buddhaghosa edited was called Maha-aṭṭhakathā even before he came.
  • And the body of venerable Buddhaghosa’s work is Maha-aṭṭhakathā, unless he specifically mentioned about an insertion of him. (according to many sources including commentary)
  • Maha-aṭṭhakathā says “ācariyavādo nāma aṭṭhakathā” and “ācariyavādo nāma aṭṭhakathātanti”.
  • And the aṭṭhakathā clearly mentions “Suttavibhanga” as “sutta”. (not as “aṭṭhakathā”).

So how is it reasonable to take “aṭṭhakathā” as “Suttavibhanga”.

Venerable Buddhagosa himself clearly mentions that his work is an integration of the following parts.

  • Maha aṭṭhakathā (as the body)
  • Other aṭṭhakathās like Kurundi, Paccariya (only when necessary and where he specifically mentions)
  • Theravāda (where he specifically mentions)

And he gives his opinion in very very few cases and mentions it as his opinion.

Yes.

Many historical sources (Vamsas, Tikas and Sinhala books) say that

  • Venerable Buddhagosa worked under the supervision of Mahavihara.
  • He was invited by different theras in Mahavihara to compile different works.
  • He was given Atthakata.
  • Those theras and Mahavihara accepted / endorsed his works.

There are people in this world who don’t accept anything out of faith, even when it is reasonable.

Yes, they can never be convinced either by Well-reasoned faith or by Ill-reasoned faith.

There are many historical sources, even some Non-theravada sources.
Tibetan and Chinese sources

Good move.

If one read the rest part of the same sutta, one can avoid both extremes which turn in to a “some true, and some otherwise” philosophy.

Yes. At least one should learn well before start analyzing.

As well as what we truly know from what we guess.

Unnecessary doubt is not helpful and only the reasonable doubt is helpful.

Another English misinterpretation that leads to unnecessary doubts or views.

“bāhirakā sāvaka·bhāsitā” : Here the word “sāvaka” is classically interpreted with the previous word; as bāhiraka-sāvakas (outside-savakas / non-budhist disciples)

:heart:

3 Likes

Right.
Buddhist these days overestimate their abilities and, not realising that it is wrong view and doubt, try to come up with their own Commentary.

There is good reason that the ancient Commentary edited by Buddhaghosa has been accepted for millenia by the Sangha - and why it was accepted at the Mahavihara at the time he wrote it.

4 Likes

Well said.

I always like the phrase that mocks “Tearavadans” which says…
“Don’t listen to the commentaries… now let me tell you what the sutta really means.”

2 Likes

Hi ekocare, thank you for your relentless attempts at refutation, some of which are interesting. However, many of your comments address earlier stages of the conversation and fail to account for the shifts that have happened in its course. Let me try to address the ones that actually make sense

I do not share this disdain for the current youth but here is what can definitely be said about the faculty of faith:

SN 48.9
And what is the faculty of faith? It’s when a noble disciple has faith in the Realized One’s awakening: ‘That Blessed One is perfected, a fully awakened Buddha, accomplished in knowledge and conduct, holy, knower of the world, supreme guide for those who wish to train, teacher of gods and humans, awakened, blessed.’ This is called the faculty of faith.

Faith is being convinced that the Buddha was actually awakened. I don’t see anything about anyone’s opinion on anything else in this passage.

Well I had a discussion on this topic with @Matthias-Lentrein earlier in this thread and you may not have caught it but he successfully convinced me that the ideas I was confronting him with, which I had borrowed from a Malaysian monk via a Canadian monk, were ill-conceived, seemingly based on ignorance of the Cy’s terminology. I have subsequently reported to the Canadian monk the information that Matthias provided me with.

So it may not be necessary to come back to that discussion

It seems very unlikely to me that the Theravada tradition would have been able to preserve verbatim the arahants’ commentary during the first council but could not preserve contents of the mulas, such as names and locations. But your mileage may vary, especially since you seem to operate on a very different idea of what ‘faith’ is.

Well can you please quote the relevant passages and indicate what exactly you think they demonstrate?

Perhaps you need to reflect on the ills of ill-conceived faith. Imagine I start saying that the Buddha was so blissful that he never actually experienced any pain because he constantly used a mind-made body to interact with people while his real body was blissfully resting in Tusita heaven the whole time.

Wouldn’t I be able to claim that I display higher faith in the Buddha than you in case you tried to question any part of my above statement, trying to disparage you by saying such things as you “don’t accept anything out of faith, even when it is reasonable” (using of course my own frame of reference for what is to be considered ‘reasonable’, not yours) or that you “can never be convinced either by Well-reasoned faith or by Ill-reasoned faith”?

That is up for debate indeed.

All the best in your endeavors and remember to discuss issues rather than disparaging people as the former may be meritorious while the latter is disadvantageous

1 Like

Great job @Matthias-Lentrein

1 Like

2 posts were split to a new topic: Clinging To Classical Theravada