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

[ekocare]

@Sekha

I think we should be careful of not caricaturing others’ views in an effort to disparage them. I have never seen anyone who believes that they can understand the suttas without the help of commentaries.

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

@Sekha

I have seen people pointing out individual cases where they think the commentary is mistaken.

Technically it is Attanomati.

@Sekha

in their view the commentary can make mistakes

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

@Sekha

apply analysis to each piece of commentary to evaluate if it seems reasonable or not

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

@Sekha

I believe this is B. Bodhi’s view,

So Attanomati.

@Sekha

apply analysis to each piece of commentary … with the willingness to give the commentary the benefit of the doubt in most cases.

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

@Ontheway

@Sekha

Maybe the conversation should then be about whether it could be agreed upon that the commentary can sometimes be wrong, or if it should be considered as perfectly flawless.

This is not helpful. If we do this, then next people will hold conversation to decide which sutta is wrong and which is correct, then to discard which Vinaya, then to dismiss which Abhidhamma book…

It is a disaster.

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.

@bksubhuti

The document is mostly actually for us who already believe. It is to keep our own faith.

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

@Sekha

So I assume this means the commentaries are to be seen as perfectly flawless.

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

@Sekha

This is followed by this statement:

apica suttantābhidhammavinayaṭṭhakathāsu āgato sabbopi theravādo “attanomati” nāma.

In fact the entire doctrine of the elders (Theravada!) found in the commentaries to the suttas, abhidhamma and vinaya is also personal opinion.

So here we have the Commentary saying that the Commentary is ‘personal opinion’, that actually the entirety of Theravada is to be considered as personal opinion.

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.

@Sekha

so there is reasonable grounds to believe that what is refered to here as the commentary is actually the Suttavibhanga, not Buddhagosa’s commentary.

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”.

@Sekha

Do you mean that Buddhagosa’s commentary is a mix between the arahants’ and his personal opinion?

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.

@Sekha

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 attanomati is meant to refer to 2) and 3)?

Yes.

@Sekha

So we have to trust the personal opinion of Buddhagosa that what he writes is verbatim what the arahants said at the first council.

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.

@Sekha

There are people in this world who don’t accept everything blindly out of faith.

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

@Sekha

They can never be convinced by mere assertions of faith.

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

@Sekha

You need to demonstrate that what the commentary says is historically accurate and not just the belief at the time.

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

@Sekha

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

Good move.

@Sekha

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.’

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.

@Matthias-Lentrein

We don’t need to take a small quote in order to interpret in the way to fit our views…

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

@Sekha

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

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

@Ontheway

It is not helpful at all.

@Sekha

What is not helpful, and why?

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

@Sekha

bāhirakā sāvaka·bhāsitā
by people from outside, or the words of disciples

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)