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.
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.
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)
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.
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
