Dear Dhamma friends,
In a forum like this, which maintains the purity of the Theravada teaching, i.e., the teaching of Vinaya-Sutta-Abhidhamma teaching that comes to us from the first and second Buddhist councils, it is important to make sure that there are no contradictions, either between the Commentaries and the Root (the original Sutta/Vinaya/Abhidhamma, mūla) and within the Commentaries themselves.
“Sabbaṃ theravādanti dve saṅgītiyo āruḷhā pāḷiyevettha ‘‘theravādo’’ti veditabbā.” (SāratthadīpanīṬ MM vol.1 p.135)
→ “‘All Theravāda’ there should be known as only the Pāli that was written during the two Councils /the first & second Buddhist councils/.”
=> In other words, all the main text and Commentaries that come from the First and Second Buddhist councils are to be accepted as the Truth, in order that we say we follow the Teaching of Theras, i.e., Theravāda.
//Fun fact: Theravāda has two meanings based on how you visandhi (split) the word: (a) Thera+vāda = the teachings of Theras; (b) thira+vāda = the teaching on permanence: “Theravādanti thirabhāvavādaṃ, thero ahametthāti etaṃ vacanaṃ.” (MNA 26. Pāsarāsi Sutta, MNA 2.77) → “‘Theravāda,’ (that is) the teaching on the existence of permanence, in the saying ‘I am permanent.’”//
I propose several types of problems that modern scholars may find in the Commentaries and their particular examples. Let me suggest that, in addition to suggesting new cases of issues, we also discuss the types of issues here. For each issue, let me suggest that anyone interested creates a separate topic (site) for that particular problem, and we discuss it in the new topic site at length. We can then add the link to that topic (site) in this list so readers and enthusiasts can get the details.
Let’s agree on some small rules to avoid misunderstanding:
- We only cite Pali scriptures, let’s avoid “bubble arguments”. Bubble arguments are those that have no evidence, such as “the Buddha said these words/ideas rarely,” “I don’t think the Buddha would say this,” or “the Buddha did not speak in this style,” as they are only assumptions, empty of any evidence. Whatever concern we raise, let’s provide Pali citation and the volume & page where it is (or Collection & Sutta name/verse). This will save us space and time. Suggestions/concerns without Pali citation are suitable for deletion.
- I will use the books and page numbers in the Burmese edition of Pali texts as that’s how I studied them. I use Chaṭṭhasaṅgāyanā Tipiṭaka 4.1 or Tipiṭaka Pāḷi Reader for research; use whatever you find convenient and be mindful of it. Please, use the correct volume and page or the accurate address for your citation. If you cite a Sutta, always mention the Sutta name. Avoid providing Suttas just in numbers as different editions of Pali texts number them differently, or it may be difficult to find them just through a number. Pali is essential, as translations may be misleading.
- Always provide a translation to your Pali text, either yours or from another author (but mention exactly where you got it from). Let me suggest you never use ChatGPT as it is still experimental.
- No personal attacks, please. We are always open to discovering that all Commentaries are perfectly correct and that there is no problem. Or we are always open to discovering that there are problems. And that perhaps there is a way to resolve those problems! Discuss and learn. Always stick to the Cattāro mahāpadesā, the Four Great Standards:
Vinaya Piṭaka Pārājikakaṇḍa Aṭṭhakathā, MM p.196:
“ācariyavādo nāma dhammasaṅgāhakehi pañcahi arahantasatehi ṭhapitā pāḷivinimuttā okkantavinicchayappavattā aṭṭhakathātanti.”
→ “The teaching of teachers are the Commentaries (Atthakatha) that have been gradually preserved with decisions, different from the original Pali (Buddha’s discourses) and established by the 500 Arahants who rehearsed the Dhamma (during the First Buddhist Council).”
Further in Vin ParA MM p.196:
“ācariyavādopi suttānulome otāretabbo. tattha otaranto samentoyeva gahetabbo, itaro na gahetabbo. ācariyavādato hi suttānulomaṃ balavataraṃ.”
→ “The teaching of teachers (the Atthakatha) should be compared to the Discourses (of the Buddha). When comparing, if it is comparable it should be accepted, the rest (which is not comparable) should be left out. Indeed, the Discourses are more important (/“powerful”) than the teaching of the teachers (Atthakatha).”
Here are the topics and examples I suggest:
(A) Vinaya rules in Commentaries that do not agree with the Root
- A1. Song that is related to Dhamma is not allowed but Dhamma that is made into song is allowed: Dhammūpasaṃhitampi cettha gītaṃ na vaṭṭati, gītūpasaṃhito pana dhammo vaṭṭatīti veditabbo. (MM KhpA 2. Dasasikkhāpadaṃ, p.26, Commentary for the 10 precepts) BUT the SubCommentary to Dīgha Nikāya quotes the Khuddakapāṭha but says the opposite: Tathā hi vuttaṃ paramatthajotikāya khuddakapāṭhaṭṭhakathāya (khu. pā. aṭṭha. pacchimapañcasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) ‘‘dhammūpasaṃhitampi cettha gītaṃ vaṭṭati, gītūpasaṃhito dhammo na vaṭṭatī’’ti. (DNṬ 1. Brahmajālasutta, MM 1.123)
→ In DN Comy it is mentioned that the kind of music, even when played by musicians, which creates faith in the Triple Gem should be attended to: yaṃ pana atthanissitaṃ dhammanissitaṃ kumbhadāsigītampi suṇantassa pasādo vā uppajjati, nibbidā vā saṇṭhāti, evarūpo saddo sevitabbo’’ (DNA 2.328).
=> This contradicts with the Buddha’s explanation: “Ruṇṇamidaṁ, bhikkhave, ariyassa vinaye yadidaṁ gītaṁ. … Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, setughāto gīte, setughāto nacce, alaṁ vo dhammappamoditānaṃ sataṃ sitaṃ sitamattāyā”ti.” (AN 3.107. Ruṇṇa Sutta, MM 1.263) → “Monks, in the discipline of a noble one, as for singing, it is wailing. … Therefore, monks, cutting off singing, cutting off dancing, may there be for you, rejoicing in Dhamma, smile just (to show) satisfaction (i.e., no laughter).”
(B) Vinaya rules in Commentaries that were never mentioned in the Root
=> All of such rules go against the Buddha’s decision mentioned to venerable Upasena, where the Buddha decides:
‘‘Sādhu sādhu, upasena, apaññattaṃ na paññapetabbaṃ, paññattaṃ vā na samucchinditabbaṃ, yathāpaññattesu sikkhāpadesu samādāya vattitabbaṃ." (Vin Pārājikapāli Nisīdanasanthatasikkhāpada, MM 337)
→ “Well, well, Upasena, the rules not announced (by me, the Buddha) should not be announced, but the rules announced (by me, the Buddha) should not be abolished; they should be followed in the way (they were) announced (by me, the Buddha).”
- B1. The Commentaries suggest that if a monk does not reflect on his Four Requisites (and in particular on medicine), it is a dukkaṭā, but that does not seem to be a decision from the Buddha: “Senāsanampi paribhoge paribhoge paccavekkhitabbaṃ, bhesajjassa paṭiggahaṇepi paribhogepi satipaccayatā vaṭṭati, evaṃ santepi paṭiggahaṇe satiṃ katvā paribhoge akarontasseva āpatti, paṭiggahaṇe pana satiṃ akatvā paribhoge karontassa anāpatti.” (Vin PārA MM 2.272)
→ “Whenever using a dwelling, it should be reflected upon; it is proper when accepting and even using medicine with reflection, if it is so, after being mindful when receiving, while using (consuming) (but) not doing (reflection) it is an offense; however without mindfulness while receiving and doing (reflection) while using (consuming), it is no offense.”
(C) Commentaries contradict themselves (non-story)
-
C1. The Commentary to Dīgha, Aṅguttara, and Saṃyutta Nikāya contradict each other in the way how the Buddha’s Teachings will gradually disappear. This contradiction is mentioned in the SāratthadīpanīṬ MM 3.439. This SubCommentary cites the three Commentaries to show their discrepancy and concludes: “Yasmā cetaṃ sabbaṃ aññamaññapaṭiviruddhaṃ, tasmā tesaṃ tesaṃ bhāṇakānaṃ matameva ācariyena tattha tattha dassitanti gahetabbaṃ. Aññathā hi ācariyasseva pubbāparavirodhappasaṅgo siyāti.”
→ “While this is mutually contradicting, it should be understood as accepted by the recitors (who memorized a specific portion of Suttas) from each of their teacher’s opinion. Otherwise it may be an attachment of a teacher to a contradiction of (what was) before (to what came) later.”
=> This contradiction was also mentioned by Mahagandhayone Sayadaw, the author of Pariyatti textbooks in Myanmar. He concludes that while this contradiction is true, Commentaries never contradict themselves on essential Dhamma issues. -
C2. The Commentaries suggest (like ven. Kumāra Kassapa in DN 23. Pāyāsi Sutta) that the time in human world goes much faster than the time in the heavens.
DN 23. Pāyāsi Sutta, MM 2.261: “Yaṃ kho pana, rājañña, mānussakaṃ vassasataṃ, devānaṃ tāvatiṃsānaṃ eso eko rattindivo … Ye te mittāmaccā ñātisālohitā pāṇātipātā … te kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā sugatiṃ saggaṃ lokaṃ upapannā … Api nu te āgantvā āroceyyuṃ – ‘itipi atthi paro loko …’’’ti? ‘‘No hidaṃ, bho kassapa. Api hi mayaṃ, bho kassapa, ciraṃ kālaṅkatāpi bhaveyyāma.”
→ As there are, however, young noble, a hundred years for humans, for the deities of Tāvatiṃsa that is one night&day … If your friends & companions kill … (and) their body is destroyed, after death (they) are born in the happy destination, in the heavenly world … will they really come and tell (you) 'there is, indeed, the next life (“world”) …"? “Indeed not, friend Kassapa. Actually, we, friend Kassapa (by then), will be already long dead.”
=> The Buddha does not provide sufficient detail to decide which of these two interpretations is correct: that a day in heaven is just so long that during it, many days pass in the human world - something like one day in the North/South Pole takes as long as six months in the inhabited parts of our planet. Still, it is also possible to understand that the experience of one day feels as long as it feels one day among humans, except time in the human world runs so much faster, something like when astronauts experience shorter time in Space than we who are on earth. When they return to earth, they are still young, while the other people are much older. I find both of the interpretations in the Abhidhamma Commentary to Vibhaṅga, Dhammasaṅgaṇi:
DhsA MM p.16: “Buddhānañhi bhattānumodanakālepi thokaṃ vaḍḍhetvā anumodentānaṃ desanā dīghamajjhimanikāyappamāṇā hoti. Pacchābhattaṃ pana sampattaparisāya dhammaṃ desentānaṃ desanā saṃyuttaaṅguttarikadvemahānikāyappamāṇāva hoti. Kasmā? Buddhānañhi bhavaṅgaparivāso lahuko dantāvaraṇaṃ suphusitaṃ mukhādānaṃ siliṭṭhaṃ jivhā mudukā saro madhuro vacanaṃ lahuparivattaṃ. Tasmā taṃ muhuttaṃ desitadhammopi ettako hoti. Temāsaṃ desitadhammo pana ananto aparimāṇoyeva.”
→ “For the Buddhas, at the time of saying thanks for meal, after a little development the teaching (of the Buddha) as (meal) gratitude /at the time of expressing gratitude for meal/ has the extent Dīgha, Majjhima (sutta) collections. But after the meal the teaching of Dhamma to the assembled crowd is even at the extent of Saṃyutta, Aṅguttara great (sutta) collections. Why? For the Buddhas, the duration of bhavaṅga is light, the dental obstruction is easily contacted /easy to move teeth/, the oral opening is smooth, the tongue is soft, voice is sweet, the speech turns fast. Hence in that short time the taught Dhamma is such (long). Then the Dhamma taught in Three months (in the heaven) is immeasurable.”
=> The Dhammasaṅgani Commentary here implies that 3 months is a long time in the heavens. However, counted according to venerable Kumārakassapa’s understanding, 3 months in Tāvatiṃsa, where the Buddha stayed, would be just 3 minutes and 36 seconds. Thus the explanation of the Abhidhamma Commentary Dhammasaṅgaṇi does not seem to follow the idea of venerable Kumārakassapa.
(D) Commentaries contradict themselves (stories)
-
D1. One of the Buddha’s devotees, queen Sāmāvatī, was to be executed by king Udena for her alleged (but not really) attempt to kill the king. The way how this execution happened is explained in two different ways:
Version A in ANA 1.14. Etadaggavaggo, MM 1.340 & PsmA MM 2.289:
"Rājā kaṇḍaṃ neva khipituṃ na apanetuṃ sakkoti, gattehi sedā muccanti … "
→ “The king was not able either to shoot (the arrow) nor to give up, sweat exited from (his) limbs …”
Version B in DhpA 2.1 (for verses 21-23), MM 1.138:
“Rājā sahassathāmaṃ siṅgadhanuṃ ādāya jiyaṃ pothetvā visapītaṃ saraṃ sannayhitvā sāmāvatiṃ dhure katvā sabbā tā paṭipāṭiyā ṭhapāpetvā sāmāvatiyā ure saraṃ vissajjesi. So tassā mettānubhāvena paṭinivattitvā āgatamaggābhimukhova hutvā rañño hadayaṃ pavisanto viya aṭṭhāsi.”
→ The king took the Siṅga bow of thousand-(fold) strength, he stroke the (bow’s) string, arranged an arrow dipped in poison (on the bow) and shot the arrow (in the direction) to the chest of Sāmāvatī after having all the (500 court ladies) successively arranged with Sāmāvatī being the first. It (the arrow), by her (of Sāmāvatī) loving-kindness power, returned and, being at the start of the path from which it came, it stayed as if it was (going to) enter the heart of the king." -
D2. The Commentaries suggest that the Buddha-to-be never told a lie: “Bodhisattassa hi ekaccesu ṭhānesu pāṇātipātopi adinnādānampi kāmesumicchācāropi surāmerayamajjapānampi hotiyeva, atthabhedakavisaṃvādanaṃ purakkhatvā musāvādo nāma na hoti” ([431] 5. Haritacajātakavaṇṇanā)
→ “There is for a Buddha-to-be at a certain case even killing, even stealing, even sexual misconduct, even drinkinking intoxicants; there never such a lie (for a Bodhisatta) that puts first destruction of someone’s welfare (and) deceives.”
=> The Commentaries seem to suggest that the Buddha did not break the fourth precept but still specify it in a way that in a way the Buddha-to-be still broke the fourth precept but not in a particular evil way. Is it a welfare of a crocodile to kill a prey and have something to eat? Is it a welfare for an ogre to kill an enemy so he feels safe or have his hunger satisfied? Or is it not their welfare? The Buddha-to-be said lies that, if are not accept as lies, lead to the idea (as accepted in certain Buddhist communities) that deceaving and pretending is totally ethical. The result is that the people then do not believe each other.
→ The Bodhisatta told an outright lie and broken the fourth of the 5 precepts (five precepts) when, as a monkey, suggested to the crocodile that he has no heart in his chest and that his heart is hanging on a tree, moreover falsely promising him to give him his heart although there was no such intention at all. This happened because a crocodile’s wife got pregnant and wanted to eat the monkey’s heart. The crocodile then promised to his friend monkey to take him on his (the crocodile’s) back to the other bank of the river, where is excellent fruit to eat. The monkey believed the crocodile and stepped onto his back. The crocodile then started to sink in the water and the monkey asked what happened. Learning that he is going to be killed for his heart, he misled, deceived, and lied to the crocodile that his heart is hanging on a tree. - “Saṃsumāro thokaṃ gantvā nimujjituṃ ārabhi. Atha naṃ vānaro ‘‘kiṃkāraṇā, bho, maṃ udake nimujjāpesī’’ti āha. ‘‘Ahaṃ taṃ māretvā tava hadayamaṃsaṃ mama bhariyāya dassāmī’’ti. ‘‘Dandha tvaṃ mama hadayamaṃsaṃ ure atthīti maññasī’’ti? ‘‘Atha kahaṃ te ṭhapita’’nti? ‘‘Etaṃ udumbare olambantaṃ na passasī’’ti? ‘‘Passāmi, dassasi pana me’’ti. ‘‘Āma, dassāmī’’ti. Saṃsumāro dandhatāya taṃ gahetvā nadītīre udumbaramūlaṃ gato.” (J342 Vānarajātakavaṇṇanā, MM JA 3.121)
→ The Bodhisatta also said a lie in the Pañcāvudha Jātaka (J 55), when he told the Silesaloma Yakkha that if the yakkha/ogre swallows the five-weapon prince, the diamond sword in the prince’s body will kill the yakkha. The jātaka explains that the prince meant the sword of knowledge/wisdom, but the yakkha understood it as a hard object that is difficult to swallow. What if a monk tells a lay person that the monk has achieved the highest attainment possible, meaning the monkhood, but clearly aware that the layperson will understand it as Arahanthood and saying so to get more support from the donor? Would that be totally fine and praiseworthy? Probably not, because the monk would be deceiving the layperson to gain, just like the prince in the jātaka was deceiving by telling a lie (suggesting that the sword in the princes body would kill the yakkha, which was totaly not true and the prince knew it) to the yakkha to save his (the prince’s) life.
→ In Jātaka 546 the Mahā Ummagga Jātaka, the bodhisatta Mahosadha tells lies again and again to his king and ministers (all from Vedeha), when they are all captured by the king Cūḷanī of Kampilla, that the bodhisatta has no way how to make the kin and ministers escape from the clutches of the king Kimpilla. Only after he was pleaded several times he then told the truth that he actually had arranged a way to escape. Suppose a monk would tell a donor that the monk is an Arahant only to punish the layperson for insulting or abusing this particular monk, and then, when the layperson would apologize, afraid, the monk would then say that the monk actually is not an Arahant. Would that be alright? It wouldn’t, by any way. Therefore, the Bodhisatta Mahosadha told an outright lie to the king Cūḷanī and the ministers.
(E) Commentaries provide a fundamental explanation that is nowhere mentioned in the Root
=> The main point of Commentaries is to provide explanations that are not available in the Root. However, I wonder if Commentaries (a) provide only explanations or whether (b) Commentaries introduce a fundamental teaching that does not seem to be implied by the Buddha. This type of issue will try to point to the (b) kind.
-
E1. Teaching on kalāpas is seen in the Abhidhamma Commentaries, but it is not as clear from the Abhidhamma, where the word kalāpa never occurs. It is hard to quote absence, but I would like to quote a substitution. While kalāpas should contain eight materialities (four main and four derived), the Root text speaks of four elements and many derived materialities, first the five sense-doors, the five sense-objects, two sexes, life-force, bodily & speech intimation, space, lightness, softness, malleability, arising, staying, decay, impermanence, and food. They are not given as elements or components of atom-like particles, but only as producers of the four main elements: “Katamaṃ taṃ rūpaṃ upādā? Cakkhāyatanaṃ, sotāyatanaṃ, ghānāyatanaṃ, jivhāyatanaṃ, kāyāyatanaṃ, rūpāyatanaṃ, saddāyatanaṃ, gandhāyatanaṃ, rasāyatanaṃ, itthindriyaṃ, purisindriyaṃ, jīvitindriyaṃ, kāyaviññatti, vacīviññatti, ākāsadhātu, rūpassa lahutā, rūpassa mudutā, rūpassa kammaññatā, rūpassa upacayo, rūpassa santati, rūpassa jaratā, rūpassa aniccatā, kabaḷīkāro āhāro.” (Dhammasaṅgaṇīpāḷi Dukaniddeso Upādābhājanīya, MM p.156)
=> On the other hand, Commentaries speak of kalāpas as constituent particles that contain at least eight materialities: the four main elements plus color, smell, taste, and nutritive essence. Unlike the modern concept of having all of these eight materialities in every single particle of the whole universe and never seven or less, the Commentaries seem to assign these eight materialities to the matter of food:
SNA 2.1.2.1. Āhāra Sutta, MM 2.24: Ko panettha āhāro kiṃ āharatīti? Kabaḷīkārāhāro ojaṭṭhamakarūpāni … Kabaḷīkārāhāro tāva mukhe ṭhapitamatteyeva aṭṭha rūpāni samuṭṭhāpeti, dantavicuṇṇitaṃ pana ajjhohariyamānaṃ ekekaṃ sitthaṃ aṭṭhaṭṭharūpāni samuṭṭhāpetiyeva. Evaṃ kabaḷīkārāhāro ojaṭṭhamakarūpāni āharati.
→ What is, however, food, what does it bring in? The physical (lump-made) food brings the materialities with eighth being nutritive essence /i.e., it brings in the kalāpas that consist of eight materialities, the last of them being nutritive essence/ … The physical food then right as it is placed in the mouth contains the eight materialities, but when crushed by teeth and brought inside, each arrangement(?sitthaṃ) comprises just the eight materialities. Thus the physical food brings the materialities that have nutritive essence as eighth. -
E2. Teaching on seven javanas also does not seem to be mentioned in Abhidhamma. While the Buddha does not imply that the mind stream involves seven javanas, the Commentaries mention it either as the seventh main type of mind that arises in each mental stream’s section, or as seven moments of javana. Somehow this does not seem to be a topic of the Root scriptures:
DNA 22. Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, MM 1.150: " … javanāni javanti, paṭhamajavane satekicchā honti, tathā dutiyādīsu, sattame buddhānampi atekicchā anivattino ariṭṭhakaṇṭakasadisā."
→ " … javanas run, in the first javana it is remediable, likewise in the second and further, but in the seventh even by the Buddhas it is irremediable, unstoppable like the (wrong view of venerables) Ariṭṭha (and) Kaṇṭaka." (The mental stream in detail is mentioned a few pages later, in MM 1.174)
(F) Commentaries disagree with the Buddha
-
F1. The Buddha again and again stresses that it is the practice of Satipaṭṭhāna, following rules, following the Buddha’s Teachings, which maintains the existence of the Buddha’s Teachings. Commentaries assert the other way and provide a verse from the Buddha that appears nowhere in the Root.
→ Aṅguttara’s Kimila Suttas (AN 5, 6, and 7) as well as Saṃyutta 2.5.13. Saddhammappatirūpaka Sutta stress that it is the respect towards (and Commentaries explain it as following) the rules that maintain the Buddha’s Teachings. Kimila Suttas 6 & 7 further add Concentration (explained as jhānas in the Commentaries) and Mindfulness (explained as the four Satipaṭṭhānas in the Commentaries) as the conditions for preserving the Buddha’s Teachings from disappearance. There is no mention of memorizing scriptures: “‘‘Idha, kimila, tathāgate parinibbute bhikkhū bhikkhuniyo upāsakā upāsikāyo satthari agāravā viharanti appatissā, dhamme agāravā viharanti appatissā, saṅghe agāravā viharanti appatissā, sikkhāya agāravā viharanti appatissā, samādhismiṃ agāravā viharanti appatissā, appamāde agāravā viharanti appatissā, paṭisanthāre agāravā viharanti appatissā. Ayaṃ kho, kimila, hetu ayaṃ paccayo yena tathāgate parinibbute saddhammo na ciraṭṭhitiko hotī’’ti.”
→ The Buddha explains in Saṃyutta’s 5.3.5. Aññatarabrāhmaṇa Sutta, MM 3.151, that the true Dhamma disappears when the Four Satipaṭṭhānas are not practiced: “‘‘Catunnaṃ kho, brāhmaṇa, satipaṭṭhānānaṃ abhāvitattā abahulīkatattā tathāgate parinibbute saddhammo na ciraṭṭhitiko hoti.”
→ The Commentary to this discourse says that this is related to personal Dhamma, implying that this is not related to existence or opportunity to learn Dhamma after the Buddha passes away. The Commentarial explanation is contradicting the Buddha’s Teaching, as the Buddha talks about Dhamma after His passing away, not about Dhamma in a person, which would apply during the Buddha’s life and after it as well.
→ This issue, whether the Buddha’s Teaching depends on memorizing scriptures or on practicing rules and meditation is as old as the Commentaries. It is discussed in detail in Aṅguttara Nikāya Commentary 1 10. Dutiyapamādādivaggavaṇṇanā, MM 1.71, where the “Dhamma speakers” (Dhammakathikā) and “Senior (monks) who wore rag robes” (Paṃsukūlikattherā)" debated on this topic. The Senior monks provided quotes from the Suttas as we have the first available in the Buddha’s discourse: ‘‘ime ca, subhadda, bhikkhū sammā vihareyyuṃ, asuñño loko arahantehi assāti (dī. ni. 2.214). Paṭipattimūlakaṃ, mahārāja, satthusāsanaṃ paṭipattisārakaṃ. Paṭipattiyā dharantāya tiṭṭhatī’’ti (mi. pa. 4.1.7) suttaṃ āhariṃsu." → “(If) these, Subhadda, monks dwell properly, the world will not be empty of Arahants.” (DN 16. Mahāparinibbāna Sutta, MM 2.125). “The practice is the root, great king, the Dispensation of the Teacher has the essence of practice. It (the dispensation) exists (based on) practice.” (this second quote is not available to us anymore, neither in Sutta, Vinaya, or Abhidhamma, it is however mentioned again in Milindapañhā). As for the Dhammakathikas, they replied by a quote that is nowhere to be found in the Sutta, Vinaya, or Abhidhamma. While their non-canonical quote silenced the Senior monks, it does not stand against the Buddha’s original Teaching that is available to us. The verses are:
"‘‘Yāva tiṭṭhanti suttantā, vinayo yāva dippati; Tāva dakkhanti ālokaṃ, sūriye abbhuṭṭhite yathā. ‘‘Suttantesu asantesu, pamuṭṭhe vinayamhi ca;
Tamo bhavissati loke, sūriye atthaṅgate yathā. ‘‘Suttante rakkhite sante, paṭipatti hoti rakkhitā; Paṭipattiyaṃ ṭhito dhīro, yogakkhemā na dhaṃsatī’’ti." → “Until the discourses (suttas) exist, until the discipline (vinaya) shines, until then they (followers of the Buddha?) see light, like when the Sun has risen; when the discourses are not (available), when the discipline is also forgotten, darkness happens in the world, like when the Sun set. When the discourses are protected, the discipline is protected; the wise established in the safe practice will not fall from the safe practice.”
=> The problem is first, that the Buddha did not suggest this attitude and that because the practice is going to disappear first (not the paṭipatti), as the Commentaries explain themselves, the best way is to protect Sāsana through paṭipatti, the practice: i.e., until people practice, there will be both practice and scriptures. Concentration on practice will preserve the scriptures because scriptures start to disappear (first goes Paṭṭhāna of Abhidhamma) only after the practice has disappeared. -
F2. Abhidhamma and Commentaries provide different lists of materialities. I have created a table of these differences and provide the details here: 28, 27, or 29 materialities, rupa paramattha in Abhidhamma vs. Commentaries - Google Spreadsheets
→ From this table we see that Dhammasaṅgaṇīpāḷi, the Root Abhidhamma, suggests 27 materialities, i.e., without tactile object, heart base, and water element. Contrary to the Abhidhamma, the Commentary to Majjhima and Aṅguttara Nikāyas count 29 materialities, because they accept tactile object and water element as materialities. The Commentary to Paṭisambhidāmagga counts 28 materialities, because it accepts heart base unlike Abhidhamma and the Majjhima & Aṅguttara Commentaries, but agrees with Abhidhamma by rejecting tactile object and water element. Now as Abhidhamma and modern Abhidhamma teachers do not agree that water is a materiality, we will have to say that Majjhima and Aṅguttara Commentaries are unreliable in this matter. But if they are unreliable in an Abhidhamma case that we can check, can they be reliable in other explanations, which we unfortunately cannot check? And if the translator of these Commentaries, ven. Buddhaghosa decided that it is alright to disagree with Abhidhamma, could he also decide that it is alright do disagree elsewhere? These questions need to be carefully discussed.
Note that one category might be missing: “Commentaries provide a fundamental explanation that contradicts the Root.” I do not add that category here as I am not aware of any example yet. It would be a case where the Commentaries contradict impermanence (anicca), unsatisfactoriness (dukkha), not-self (anatta), the Four Noble Truths, the Dependent Origination, and the Eightfold Noble Path. All cases that come somewhat close to this topic are, I believe, just section (F), not really a contradiction. Let’s do our best and be lenient as if we make a mistake in such cases; it could be to our detriment.
This work is in progress, and I invite you all to help me improve this little list of issues and contribute any of your scriptural knowledge to enrich my and others’ understanding of the Commentarial literature.
May you all be happy and healthy,
Jansen