I wouldn’t use the term ‘omnipresent’ as all materiality arises and ceases instantly. We are considering the Commentaries, right- do you have a citation saying that kalapas (as in individual kalapas) must be seen in meditation? see also this thread:
as I see it Robert: during the development of satipatthana the processes that understand an element know the nimitta of the reality-. So the actual reality has just fallen away but we still consider it as present moment.
In the patthāna you can find it in the annantara and samanantara. It is easy to study it from the pañhāvara for the each of the tika and duka. Few examples.
So are you suggesting that the all the pāḷi and the commentaries which were added as non-theravāda and should not be accepted as truth? Or should be considered as inferior?
Theravada basically have three layers - tipiṭaka, commentaries sub commentaries and we very well know that the latter layer is the explanation of the former.
I understand that a tipiṭaka app is used to search the definition of Theravāda. Also the keyword for the search was “theravādanti” (theravāda means) and came across the search result in the sāratthadīpanī sub commentary.
Eventhough we get these results with the technology it is very important to properly understand the context which the explanation is applicable.
Here the sāratthadīpanī sub commentary explains the term “theravāda” regarding Arahant Mahinda, who was the son of king Asoka. He lead the mission to the Srilanka to following the third council. The commentary explains about his education after he ordained. So the theravāda which Arahant Mahinda learned was only from two councils.
I quoted the sentence from the commentary which the sāratthadīpanī sub commentary explains.
“From the time of his higher ordination, Mahinda Thera learned both the Dhamma and the Vinaya under his teacher. He mastered all of Theravāda, which encompasses the teachings from both Councils and the entire Tipiṭaka along with its commentaries, within a span of three years. He became the leader among the thousand monks who were disciples of his teacher.”
The word Thera is derived from the root “thira” which has the meaning of solid/ firm / stable (daḷhatthe) (ဓာတွတ္ထပန်းကုံး နှာ၂၃၈). In general, the word “Thera” is used to a monk who is ten or above vassa following the ordination, which indicate stability in the sāsana. Sāsane thirabhāvaṃ pattoti thero (Suttanipāta-aṭṭhakathā MM Page 79).
To understand the meaning for the “Theravāda” given in the Pāsarasi sutta commentary, we must read the sutta properly.
In this sutta Buddha shares the story of his life before attaining enlightenment, his departure from a comfortable royal life, and the various spiritual practices he undertook in search of a way beyond suffering. The word “Theravāda” appears in the sutta when he explains the ascetic Siddhattha’s encounter with the teacher Āḷārakāḷama. Because the Ascetic Sidhhattha was able to learn, penetrate and become firm/ established in the Āḷārakāḷama’s teaching he uses the word “theravāda” to demonstrate his status.
so kho ahaṃ, bhikkhave, nacirasseva khippameva taṃ dhammaṃ pariyāpuṇiṃ. so kho ahaṃ, bhikkhave, tāvatakeneva oṭṭhapahatamattena lapitalāpanamattena ñāṇavādañca vadāmi theravādañca, ‘jānāmi passāmī’ti ca paṭijānāmi ahañceva aññe ca.- “So indeed, monks, it was not long before I quickly learned that doctrine. Then, monks, having mastered that teaching merely through recitation and rehearsal, I spoke of knowledge and declared that 'I know, I see, the word that I’m firm/established’ along with others who also did so.” (MN Pāsarāsi Sutta, MM page 220 para 277)
So the MNA phrase you quoted should be correctly translated as - “Theravādanti thirabhāvavādaṃ - “‘Theravāda,’ (that is) the word of firmness/ established (the word vāda has to be translated as ‘word’), thero ahametthāti etaṃ vacanaṃ - In this doctrine (Āḷārakāḷama’s) I’m established, so that (he) uttered that word .” I used the Burmese Nissaya for the MNA to translate this.
Therefore, reading the sutta is very important to understand the commentaries.
@jansen believes the mind is in the brain and not in the heart. This Western interpretation is also in his dhamma talks. I think that now that he has disrobed, he is more outspoken about things that are against Classical Theravada even though his teachers follow strict Theravada.
Classical Theravada Buddhism (Orthodox Theravada) accepts the Commentary and Abhidhamma as the explanations of the suttas. This is how the whole cst or cscd works. This is the basis of this website and the qualifying factor for joining.
While I think that this post was not appropriate for our group, we have some strong members who are able to discuss and clarify the doubts. In that way it is good for all. We appreciate your presence ven @Atulañāna and your detailed work.
As you’ve accurately translated, the commentary states that he ‘never lied in a way that would harm another’s welfare.’ However, it neither directly nor indirectly suggests that it is ethical to kill someone. It is important to understand that the Bodhisatta was not perfect and made mistakes. In the Jātaka stories you referenced, whenever the Bodhisatta lied, it did not endanger the welfare of the other party. Therefore there is not contradiction in the commentaries regarding this.
In fact, the commentary delves even deeper, providing specific examples of instances where playful exaggerations or fabrications occur, illustrating moments when lying happens even in the context of light-hearted joking.
From the vinaya commentary
• If a monk, when asked by a novice “have you seen my preceptor, bhante?” playfully replies, “your preceptor must have gone (somewhere) in bullock cart after loaded with wood”.
• Upon hearing a jackal, (someone) asks, “whose sound is this, bhante?” and responds, “It is the sound of your mother as she removes a wheel stuck in the mud while traveling in a carriage”. Such responses, which are not uttered by mistakenly, cause him (the monk) to incur an offense.
• Some form of exaggeration is misleading talk. It constitutes false speech. For instance, if one monk goes for alms in the village and obtains a little oil. And after returning to the monastery, a novice asks, “Where did you go today?”. The monk replies “The whole village was overflowing with oil”
o After obtaining a piece of cake left in a small basket. “Today, cakes were distributed in the village by small baskets”. (yo pana sāmaṇerena “Api bhante mayhaṃ upajjhāyaṃ passitthā”ti vutto keḷiṃ kurumāno “Tava upajjhāyo dārusakaṭaṃ yojetvā gato bhavissatī”ti vā siṅgālasaddaṃ sutvā “Kassāyaṃ bhante saddo”ti vutto “Mātuyā te yānena gacchantiyā kaddame laggacakkaṃ uddharantānaṃ ayaṃ saddo”ti vā evaṃ neva davā na ravā aññaṃ bhaṇati, so āpattiṃ āpajjatiyeva. Aññā pūraṇakathā nāma hoti, eko gāme thokaṃ telaṃ labhitvā vihāraṃ āgato sāmaṇeraṃ bhaṇati “Tvaṃ ajja kuhiṃ gato, gāmo ekatelo ahosī”ti vā pacchikāya ṭhapitaṃ pūvakhaṇḍaṃ labhitvā “Ajja gāme pacchikāhi pūve cāresu”nti vā, ayaṃ musāvādova hoti. - pācittiya aṭṭhakathā (musāvādasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā – Paragraph 11) Tipiṭaka Pāli reader )
All of the above talk are stated as lying and lead into offence.
Further the based on the commentaries the sub-commentaries distinct the kamma and the kammapatha for telling lies.
• If the lying causes harm or affects the welfare of the other party it becomes a kammapatha, which can determine the rebirth and give subseqeunt results during the lifetime.
• If it doesn’t cause harm or affects the welfare of the other party, it is a kamma which gives results during the lifetime only.
(tattha abhūtaṃ vatthuṃ bhūtato paraṃ viññāpetukāmassa tathā viññāpanappayogasamuṭṭhāpikā cetanā musāvādo. So parassa atthabhedakarova kammapatho hoti, itaro kammameva. - abhidhammattha vibhāvinī - Page 174 - Tipiṭaka Pāli reader )
It is true that some Buddhist communities have, at times, misinterpreted this precept (a situation I’ve encountered personally).
When points are clearly articulated, does responsibility for misinterpretation lie with the interpreter or the presenter?
As you have quoted here, it is correct that the “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)”. But there is a part which is missing in this interpretation.
A logical question which arises from this explanation is if the purpose of the commentary is to explain the things which are not available in the root pāli, how a comparison is possible? Since the commentaries delve into areas not directly addressed in the Sutta, a word-for-word or idea-for-idea comparison isn’t always feasible. Here the subcommentries clearly states where this “rejection of the commentaries” should be done.
I have quoted the commentary and the subcommentry of the dīgha nikāya to understand the on the application of the “Cattāro mahāpadesā, the Four Great Standards – sutta, suttānuloma, ācariyavāda, aṭṭhakathā”
Sutta refers to the three Piṭakas that were included in the three Councils.
Suttānuloma - means what is permissible and in accordance with the sutta.
Ācariyavāda means the Commentaries (Aṭṭhakathā).
Attanomati means one’s own insight arising from understanding by the methods which are presented by the details.
In this context, the Sutta is irrefutable; one who refutes it is effectively refuting the Buddha himself. However, Suttānuloma should be accepted only when it aligns with the Sutta, not otherwise. Similarly, the Ācariyavāda should be accepted only when it agrees with the Sutta, not otherwise. Attanomati is the weakest of all; it too should be accepted only when it accords with the Sutta, not otherwise." (Suttaṃ nāma tisso saṅgītiyo ārūḷhāni tīṇi piṭakāni. Suttānulomaṃ nāma anulomakappiyaṃ. Ācariyavādo nāma aṭṭhakathā. Attanomati nāma nayaggāhena anubuddhiyā attano paṭibhānaṃ. Tattha suttaṃ appaṭibāhiyaṃ, taṃ paṭibāhantena buddhova paṭibāhito hoti. Anulomakappiyaṃ pana suttena samentameva gahetabbaṃ, na itaraṃ. Ācariyavādopi suttena samentoyeva gahetabbo, na itaro. Attanomati pana sabbadubbalā, sāpi suttena samentāyeva gahetabbā, na itarā. - Dīghanikāye - mahāvaggaṭṭhakathā - Mahāparinibbānasuttavaṇṇanā – Paragraph number - 188)
Further details regarding the ācariyavāda are given in the sub commentary – “In that context, the various miscellaneous teachings delivered here and there by the Blessed One are indeed the Commentaries (Aṭṭhakathā) . Since the compilers of the Dhamma (the arahantas in the first council), having first recited the three Piṭakas, have arranged the text according to the explanation of its meaning, it is called ‘Ācariyavāda’ (the teaching of the teachers), because the teachers teach and explain the Pāḷi through it. Therefore, it is said: ‘What is called Ācariyavāda is the Commentary (Aṭṭhakathā).’" (Tattha tattha bhagavatā pavattitapakiṇṇakadesanāva aṭṭhakathā, sā pana dhammasaṅgāhakehi paṭhamaṃ tīṇi piṭakāni saṅgāyitvā tassa atthavaṇṇanānurūpeneva vācanāmaggaṃ āropitattā “Ācariyavādo”ti vuccati ācariyā vadanti saṃvaṇṇenti pāḷiṃ etenāti. Tenāha “Ācariyavādo nāma aṭṭhakathā”ti. - Dīghanikāye - mahāvaggaṭīkā - Mahāparinibbānasuttavaṇṇanā – Paragraph number - 188))
The subcommentary further explains the commentary on how the “Ācariyavāda should be accepted only when it agrees with the Sutta, not otherwise”. It is when there are errors in the pāli of the commentary. The sub commentary clearly states when the commentaries should be rejected. Due to errors arising from copying etc, sometimes the commentaries (Ācariyavāda) may not correspond with the Pāḷi. That such should not be accepted, to present this the commentary stated “Ācariyavāda should be accepted only when it agrees with the Sutta” (Pamādapāṭhavasena ācariyavādassa kadāci pāḷiyā asaṃsandanāpi siyā, so na gahetabboti dassento āha “Ācariyavādopi suttena samentoyeva gahetabbo”ti. -Dīghanikāye - mahāvaggaṭīkā - Mahāparinibbānasuttavaṇṇanā – Paragraph number - 188))
Therefore, it is very clear that everything found in the commentaries cannot and should not be compared with the root Pāli texts. Also the rejection of the commentaries should be done when there are errors arising from copying etc.
The offence is applicable only to the medicine, not on the other three requsities. The subcommentary states this – (Senāsanampi paribhoge paribhogeti pavese pavese. Evaṃ pana asakkontena purebhattādīsu paccavekkhitabbaṃ. Taṃ heṭṭhā vuttanayeneva sakkā viññātunti idha visuṃ na vuttaṃ. Satipaccayatāti satiyā paccayabhāvo, paṭiggahaṇassa paribhogassa ca paccavekkhaṇasatiyā paccayabhāvo yujjati, paccavekkhitvāva paṭiggahetabbaṃ paribhuñjitabbañcāti attho. Tenevāha “Satiṃ katvā”tiādi. Evaṃ santepīti yadipi dvīsupi ṭhānesu paccavekkhaṇā yuttā, evaṃ santepi. Apare panāhu “Satipaccayatāti satibhesajjaparibhogassa paccayabhāve paccayeti attho. Evaṃ santepīti paccaye satipī”ti, taṃ tesaṃ matimattaṃ. Tathā hi paccayasannissitasīlaṃ paccavekkhaṇāya visujjhati, na paccayasabbhāvamattena.
Since the commentaries were compiled by the 500 Arahants from the First Council, I have no doubt regarding the offence mentioned here. But for a skeptic, the evidence (which is logical) for the offence concerning medicine is available in the Vinaya Pāli itself, specifically in the Āpattivāra and Anāpattivāra sections of the Vikāla-bhojana Sikkhāpada.
“If one accepts - the medicine which can be taken between noon and dawn-time (Yāmakālika), seven-day-limit medicine (sattāhakālika), the medicine which can stored indefinitely (yāvajīvika) for the purpose of food, it is an offense of wrongdoing (dukkaṭa).” "For each mouthful consumed, there is an offense of wrongdoing. (dukkaṭa).
"There is no offense if one uses the medicine which can be taken between noon and dawn-time (Yāmakālika), seven-day-limit medicine (sattāhakālika), the medicine which can stored indefinitely (yāvajīvika) when there is a condition (to consume) as a requisite for illness.
The offences related to accepting the three types of medicines for consumption as food, and the non-offence when the medicine is consumed due to a valid condition, are presented in the Pāli. If there is no such condition to consume the medicine, and a monk consumes it without reflection, it is deemed inappropriate, compared with the non-offence described in the Vinaya Pāli. These offences doesn’t appear from nowhere!
The life span of deities in different realms is explained in detail in the dhammahadayavibhaṅga in the vibhaṅgappakaraṇa.
Each class of deity has a different lifespan, which is measured relative to human years. The dhammahadayavibhaṅga describes how many human years correspond to a single day and night in each celestial realm and then calculates the lifespan in human years for these deities:
Chātummahārājika Devas : One day and night for these deities equals 50 human years. Thus, their lifespan is 500 celestial years, which translates to 09 million human years.
Tāvatiṃsa Devas: One day and night is equal to 100 human years. Their lifespan is 1,000 celestial years, equivalent to 36 million human years.
Yāma Devas : One day and night is equal to 200 human years. Their lifespan is 2,000 celestial years, which equals 144 million human years.
Tusita Devas : One day and night equals 400 human years. Their lifespan is 4,000 celestial years, equal to 576 million human years.
Nimmānarati Devas : One day and night equals 800 human years. Their lifespan is 8,000 celestial years, totaling approximately 2.3 billion human years.
Paranimmita-vasavatti Devas : One day and night equals 1,600 human years. Their lifespan is 16,000 celestial years, which equates to around 9.2 billion human years.
(vibhaṅgappakaraṇa - dhammahadayavibhaṅga - paragraph 1023 Tipiṭaka pāḷi reader).
The dhammasaṅganī commentary doesn’t imply that three months is a long time. The passage that you have translated from the commentary
Seeks to illustrate the extensive amount of Dhamma the Buddha imparted in his daily routine. It estimates the volume of his teachings by comparing them to the lengths of the Nikāyas, indicating that extensive amount was delivered during a short period of time (“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. )
The reason the Buddha was able to do so. (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))
The Abhidhamma which was preached during the three months (in the 7th vassa) was immeasurable (Then the Dhamma taught in Three months (in the heaven) is immeasurable.”)
Note that the three months mentioned in the commentary is for the human realm. Not the deva realm.
As you have mentioned here, in the Tāvatiṃsa realm is about 3minutes in their life span.
I would assume celestial minutes are much longer than human minutes just like how celestial years are much longer than human years—not that they use the minute-hour system in the celestial realms anyway. So, I think 3 minutes in the celestial realm would still feel like 3 months in the human realm.
No logical reasoning is required here. It is directly stated in the Pāli.
I came across this passage in the Mahāvaggapāli on the offence when the medicine is consumed without reflecting.
Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, mūlāni bhesajjāni – haliddiṃ, siṅgiveraṃ, vacaṃ, vacatthaṃ, ativisaṃ, kaṭukarohiṇiṃ, usīraṃ, bhaddamuttakaṃ, yāni vā panaññānipi atthi mūlāni bhesajjāni, neva khādanīye khādanīyatthaṃ pharanti, na bhojanīye bhojanīyatthaṃ pharanti, tāni – paṭiggahetvā yāvajīvaṃ pariharituṃ; sati paccaye paribhuñjituṃ. Asati paccaye paribhuñjantassa āpatti dukkaṭassāti. - “I allow these medicinal roots: turmeric, ginger, sweet flag, white sweet flag, atis root, black hellebore, Vetiver root, nut grass, and whatever other medicinal roots there are that don’t serve as fresh or cooked food. For a discussion of these names and those below, see Appendix IV: Plants.After receiving them, you may keep them for life and use them when there’s a reason. If you use them when there’s no reason, you commit an offense of wrong conduct.” (Mahāvaggapāli - Page 292- Tipiṭaka Pāli reader, Translation from Sutta central)
There are other suttas which appear in the Pāli which directly represent this opinion of the dhammakathika-theras on how the teaching (pariyatti) and practice (paṭipatti) is connected and how the dissapearance of the teaching results in the dissapearance of the practice.
“Mendicants, these five things lead to the decline and disappearance of the true teaching. What five? It’s
(1) when mendicants don’t carefully listen to the teachings,
(2) memorize them,
(3) and remember them.
(4) They don’t carefully examine the meaning of teachings that they remember.
(5) And they don’t carefully practice in line with the meaning and the teaching they’ve understood. These five things lead to the decline and disappearance of the true teaching. (translation from the sutta central - Aṅguttaranikāya – Pañcakanipāta - Catutthapaṇṇāsaka – Saddhammavagga - Paṭhamasaddhammasammosasutta)
Moreover, in the following sutta-
“Mendicants, these five things lead to the decline and disappearance of the true teaching. What five?
It’s when the mendicants don’t memorize the teaching—statements, mixed prose & verse, discussions, verses, inspired exclamations, legends, stories of past lives, amazing stories, and elaborations. This is the first thing that leads to the decline and disappearance of the true teaching.
Furthermore, the mendicants don’t explain the teaching in detail to others as they learned and memorized it. This is the second thing …
Furthermore, the mendicants don’t make others recite the teaching in detail as they learned and memorized it. This is the third thing …
Furthermore, the mendicants don’t recite the teaching in detail as they learned and memorized it. This is the fourth thing …
Furthermore, the mendicants don’t think about and consider the teaching in their hearts, examining it with their minds as they learned and memorized it. This is the fifth thing that leads to the decline and disappearance of the true teaching.
These five things lead to the decline and disappearance of the true teaching. (Aṅguttaranikāya – Pañcakanipāta -Catutthapaṇṇāsaka – Saddhammavagga - Dutiyasaddhammasammosasutta)
Hence, there is no contradiction in the commentaries with the root.
Also, together with the below from the Aṇguttaranikāya we can understand that the dissapearance of the dhamma takes place due to both pariyatti and paṭipatti because of many factors and it includes.
114 “Mendicants, I do not see a single thing that leads to the decline and disappearance of the true teaching like negligence. Negligence leads to the decline and disappearance of the true teaching.”
116 “Mendicants, I do not see a single thing that leads to the decline and disappearance of the true teaching like laziness. Laziness leads to the decline and disappearance of the true teaching.”
118–128 “Mendicants, I do not see a single thing that leads to the decline and disappearance of the true teaching like having many wishes … lack of contentment … … irrational application of mind … lack of situational awareness … bad friends … pursuing bad habits and not good habits. Pursuing bad habits and not good habits leads to the decline and disappearance of the true teaching.” (translation from the sutta central - Aṅguttaranikāya – Ekakanipāta - Catutthapaṇṇāsaka – Dutiyapamādādivagga)
I think many/ most of us would like to be developing satipatthana and seeing results.
But as your post indicates pariyatti and patipatti are closely connected.
Right view depends on listening and considering Dhamma and satipatthana can’t arise without sufficient pariyatti.
It seems that there was an error when the copying of the manuscripts which lead to the opposite statements in the Khuddakapāṭha and commentary and the Dīgha-nikāya subbcommentary. In the past copying was done by one person reading and the other writing it by ear. This error is explained in the Abhinava-ṭikā and the error in the present day Khuddakapāṭha commentary is removed. (“Visūkabbhūtā dassanā cā”ti etena avisūkabhūtassa pana gītassa savanaṁ kadāci vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Tathā hi vuttaṁ Paramatthajotikāya Khuddakapāṭhaṭṭhakathāya “Dhammūpasaṁhitaṁpi cettha gītaṁ na vaṭṭati, gītūpasaṁhito pana Dhammo vaṭṭatī”ti (Khu·Pā·Aṭṭha· Pacchimapañcasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) katthaci pana na-kāraviparīyāyena pāṭho dissati. - The phrase “Visūkabhūtā dassanā cā” suggests that listening to a song that is not visūka sometimes be permissible. This is clarified in the Paramatthajotikā, the commentary on the Khuddakapāṭha, where it is stated: ““Dhammūpasaṁhitaṁpi cettha gītaṁ na vaṭṭati, gītūpasaṁhito pana Dhammo vaṭṭati” (Khuddakapāṭha Commentary, Explanation of the Last Five Training Rules). In some instances, however, the text appears with the opposite meaning, where the negative particle is changed (na-kāraviparīyāyena).)
I quote the Abhinava-ṭikā of the dhīgha-nikāya as this is explained in more detail who is allowed to listen to these kinds of songs. It clearly states that this is for the people who have not taken the precepts. If someone has taken the precepts and listens to songs of this kind the precept will be broken. (I belive that some people may have misinterpreted the idea in the commentary, that the commentary is encouraging the people who have taken the precepts to listen to these kinds of songs. The subcommenatator had to explain this in detail). However, it does not encourage any form of akusala. (Yañca Sakkapañhasuttavaṇṇāyaṁ sevitabbāsevitabbasaddaṁ niddharantena “yaṁ pana atthaniśsitaṁ dhammanissitaṁ kumbhadāsigītaṁpi suṇantassa pasādo vā uppajjati, nibbidā vā saṇṭhāti, evarūpo saddo sevitabbo”ti (Dī·Ni·Aṭṭha·2.365) vuttaṁ, taṁ asamādānasikkhāpadassa sevitabbatāmattapariyāyena vuttaṁ. Samādānasikkhāpadassa hi evarūpaṁ suṇantassa sikkhāpadasaṁvaraṁ bhijjati gītasaddabhāvato”ti veditabbaṁ. - The explanation in the commentary on the Sakkapañhasutta regarding the sounds which should not be followed and not which states, “If, when hearing a sound that is dependent on meaning or dependent on the Dhamma—even if it is a song sung by a female slave (carrying pots)—faith arises or disenchantment is established, such a sound is to be cultivated” (Dīgha Nikāya Commentary 2.365), refers to sound which can be listened by a person who has taken precepts. The precepts will be broken for a person when these kinds of songs are listened because these are musical sounds. )
The Ruṇṇa Sutta which you have quoted here was preached because of the Chabbaggiya monks sang, danceed and laughed. These activities are akusala.
Further, there are stories of Arahantas in our Buddha’s time where they paid respect to the previous Buddhas by music (sadda-pūjā).
After the Parinibbāna of the Buddha named Atthadassī, it is mentioned in the Ekāsaniya Thera Apadāna that a deity king named Varuṇa, gathered all his musical instruments along with his retinue and went to the Bodhi tree of that Buddha. There, he performed a grand offering to the Bodhi tree through instrumental music, dance, and song. From that time onward, he experienced happiness within the realms of gods and humans throughout the cycle of saṃsāra, until he finally entered the Buddha’s dispensation, renounced the world, and attained arahantship. (Therāpadānapāḷi (paṭhamo bhāgo) Ekāsaniyattheraapadānaṃ-Mahāparivāravaggo 31-39)
It is mentioned in the Ekasaṅkhiyatthera Apadāna that great merit was gained by worshiping the Bodhi tree of Vipassī Buddha through the offering by blowing the conch shell. (Therāpadānapāḷi (dutiyo bhāgo) Ekasaṅkhiyattheraapadānaṃ – Ekavihārivagga 13-25).
In the Buddhupaṭṭhākatthera Apadāna, it is stated that offering by blowing the conch shell to Vipassī Buddha and attending to him daily brought immense blessings… (Therāpadānapāḷi (paṭhamo bhāgo) Buddhupaṭṭhākattheraapadānaṃ – Sudhāvaggo 56-60).
Even these offerings made them accumulate wholesome kamma; by seeing their resultants, he always encouraged the practice of dhamma (paṭipatti-pūjā). We can see this in the Mahāparinibbāna sutta (DN 16) where the deities were offering him with flowers, songs and music.
“26. The Pair of Sal Trees
Then the Buddha said to Ānanda, “Come, Ānanda, let’s go to the far shore of the Golden River, and on to the sal forest of the Mallas at Upavattana near Kusinārā.” Known today as Kushinagar, it is a popular site for pilgrims, with many ancient stupas, Buddha images, and a peaceful park for meditation.
“Yes, sir,” Ānanda replied. And that’s where they went. Then the Buddha addressed Ānanda, “Please, Ānanda, set up a cot for me between the twin sal trees, with my head to the north. I am tired and will lie down.”
“Yes, sir,” replied Ānanda, and did as he was asked. And then the Buddha laid down in the lion’s posture—on the right side, placing one foot on top of the other—mindful and aware. Normally when the Buddha lies down, his mind is focused on getting up. But now he knows that he will not rise again.
Now at that time the twin sal trees were in full blossom with flowers out of season. They sprinkled and bestrewed the Realized One’s body in honor of the Realized One. And the flowers of the heavenly Flame Tree fell from the sky, and they too sprinkled and bestrewed the Realized One’s body in honor of the Realized One. And heavenly sandalwood powder fell from the sky, and it too sprinkled and bestrewed the Realized One’s body in honor of the Realized One. And heavenly music played in midair in honor of the Realized One. And heavenly choirs sang in midair in honor of the Realized One.
Then the Buddha pointed out to Ānanda what was happening, adding: “That’s not the full extent of how the Realized One is honored, respected, revered, venerated, and esteemed. Any monk or nun or male or female lay follower who practices in line with the teachings, practicing properly, living in line with the teachings—they honor, respect, revere, venerate, and esteem the Realized One with the highest honor. So Ānanda, you should train like this: ‘We shall practice in line with the teachings, practicing properly, living in line with the teaching.’” This kind of narrative elevation is characteristic of the Buddha’s teaching. He did not try to deny or eliminate any belief in the miraculous, or in the power of devotion, but rather to show that such things were of limited worth compared with practice.
We must understand by refering to many contexts. Just one or two will not do. Never in these explanations are the commentary encouraging the practitioners to conduct Akusala.
Venerable Atulañāna already explained about the connection of pariyatti and patipatti as explained in the suttas.
But since Jansen mentioned the Milindapanha I think this citation is also relevant.:
Nagasena was still a puthujjana bhikkhu, but he had mastered the Abhidhamma .
He gave a talk to a laywoman and she attained - and he attained immediately after, while he reflected on the talk he had gven.
p. 21, 22 of Horners translation of the Milinda panha: (first section, giving the background of Nagasena)
Then the venerable Nagasena gave benedictive thanks
to that important woman lay-follower by means of a
profound talk on Abhidhamma that was supermundane
and connected with (the concept of) emptiness. Then as
that important woman lay-follower was sitting on that
very seat, Dhamma-vision, dustless and stainless, arose
to her: that whatever is of the nature to arise all that is
of the nature to stop.
And after he had given the benedictive thanks to that > important woman lay-follower and was reflecting on the > Dhamma he himself had taught (her), the venerable > Nagasena aroused insight and was established in the > fruit of stream-attainment as he was sitting on that
very seat.
Then the venerable Assagutta who was sitting in a,
pavilion knew that these had both acquired Dhammavision,
and he burst forth into applause: “It is good, it
is good, Nagasena, that by one shot of an arrow two
great persons are pierced.
Robert: during the development of satipatthana the processes that understand an element know the nimitta of the reality-. So the actual reality has just fallen away but we still consider it as present moment.