Thank you for the explanation. The questioning of the suttas as authoritative is interesting. I can understand wanting to know for yourself through practice. But the suttas seem to be the starting point. If you don’t have personal experience, and texts are all you have, the suttas should be primary - because that is the source of the teachings.
It is interesting that calming the breath is seen in the commentaries as training to entirely still the breath. I have heard that the breath stops in the fourth jhana - but I’m not sure that the satipatthana and anapanasati suttas were specifically intended to take a practitioner to the fourth jhana. Particularly when Nibbana can be achieved from any one of the eight.
Thank you for the explanation. It makes sense that commentaries can shed additional light on various parts of the suttas that may be more thinly sketched out.
However, sometimes the commentaries seem to be used to put forward a view that bends the suttas out of shape, which I believe is wrong. Unless my reading of what Robert wrote is mistaken, his initial post seems to fall into this category.
He quotes the commentaries to prove that tranquility of the body means tranquility of various mental factors.
But if you look at the anapanasati and satipatthana suttas as well as MN44, calming bodily fabrication is equivalent to calming the in and out breath. That being the case, that should be the first interpretation tested against SN 46.2, to see if it makes sense. And it seems to do so. There is no need to add an additional layer of complexity where ‘kaya’ is taken to be something mental.
The same can be said about the Abidhamma. If it can shed light on some thinly sketched out parts of the early Pali canon, then great. But using it to negate the early Pali canon doesn’t seem fruitful.
Ideally, the order of operations should be:
- Compare the early canon’s suttas with each other to form a coherent view
- Fill in any gaps using the commentaries in a way that does not negate the suttas
Actually the Commentaries never go against the suttas. The Abhidhamma is also completely in agreement…
Taking the term kaya (body) - the Commentaries do recognize kaya as meaning physical body - just not in every context.
Even in English we have a variety of meanings for body.
Yes of course human body or animal body.
But also ‘governing body", " legislative body", “student body”,’ body of water’; “celestial body”; The ‘body of the article’ was about xxx;
Bhikkhu Bodhi’s “body of work” on Pali is extensive.
1 Like
Yes, I can understand that context matters. But your original post referenced a sutta where it does not seem to be necessary to interpret kaya as non physical. And there is no line of reasoning provided to show why a non-physical kaya would be the preferred interpretation. Only a quote to the effect that this is so because so and so says it is so.
I’m not sure how you could make that claim unless you had a noble attainment which allowed you to interpret all three of these correctly - and you had read all three from cover to cover.
If you are saying that there is universal consensus on the alignment between these three, that is also not so.
This sutta and Commentary is rather complex, yes.
here is Sujato’s translation along with the Pali of the section:
And what fuels the arising of the awakening factor of tranquility, or, when it has arisen, fully develops it?
Ko ca, bhikkhave, āhāro anuppannassa vā passaddhisambojjhaṅgassa uppādāya, uppannassa vā passaddhisambojjhaṅgassa bhāvanāya pāripūriyā?
There is tranquility of the body and of the mind.
Atthi, bhikkhave, kāyapassaddhi, cittapassaddhi.
Frequent rational application of mind to that
Tattha yonisomanasikārabahulīkāro—
fuels the arising of the awakening factor of tranquility, or, when it has arisen, fully develops it.
ayamāhāro anuppannassa vā passaddhisambojjhaṅgassa uppādāya, uppannassa vā passaddhisambojjhaṅgassa bhāvanāya pāripūriyā.
and the Commentary:
Kāyapassaddhīti tiṇṇaṃ khandhānaṃ darathapassaddhi.
“Calming of the body” means the cessation of agitation in the three aggregates [feeling, perception, volition].Cittapassaddhīti viññāṇakkhandhassa darathapassaddhi.
“Calming of the mind” is the cessation of agitation in the consciousness aggregate.
I find it reasonable that body in this case means the body of mental factors as to me mental tranquility is prime (see also Ceisiwr’s posts about this in the thread).
Take the case of sitting very still, and sure anyone can do that. Years ago I used to go along to a Zen-do near a beautiful lake. And I was quite pleased that as a ‘Theravadan’ I could sit still for 2 rotations while the Zen aficionados had done sitting then walking and then back to sitting. How pleased I was when the organizer praised me for that.
But was there any tranquility in the sense of the sutta above - well that depends entirely on the mental factors at the time. Actually I could be sitting peacefully and be immersed in a range of kilesa (defilements) - no different really than any other time.
Back to why should we accept the Commentary on this and other points. Remember that Buddhaghosa - the writer of the Sāratthappakāsinī (this Commentary) - had at his side the ancient Commentaries many of which date back to the time of the Buddha. He edited them and his work was recognised and accepted by the great monks at the Mahavihara. They are an integral part of the Theravada.
I think even someone who reads all three from cover to cover - and even if with a noble attainment - no one can be absolutely certain that there are not deviations here and there. By ‘in agreement’ I mean I am certain that the Commentaries never knowingly attempt to refute or change the meanings of any suttas - so we might find any discrepancies can only be minor and likely to be from our side. Regarding the Abhidhamma, the Theravada hold it as the word of the Buddha - he first taught it to his mother and the myriad devas - so of course it is in agreement.
Although there are little areas where no one knows. The Commentaries are open about such matters. They might say “according to the Digha reciters … . But according to the Majjhima reciters …” (I paraphrase).
There is for example the case of Mogallana in a past life. According to the Dhammapada reciters he killed his parents. But the Jataka reciters (or another group of reciters) says he intended to kill them but relented after the first blows . He was however reborn in hell in both cases. And when he took his last birth the residual kamma of the act meant he could be killed by the band of assassins.
It should also be noted that one could read the entire Sutta Pitaka and come to wrong view:
The Atthasalini (translated as the Expositor
p31)
The bhikkhu, who is ill trained in the Sutta , gets a wrong idea, not knowing the
meaning of such passages as, ‘ There are, bhikkhus, four
persons in the world,’ concerning which it has been said,
‘ Owing to his wrong ideas, he accuses us, harms himself and
produces much demerit.’ Consequently he arrives at wrong
> views.
And also the one who studies Abhidhamma can go wrong:
The bhikkhu, who is ill trained in the Abhidhamma,
makes his mind run to excess in metaphysical abstractions
and thinks of the unthinkable. Consequently he gets mental
distraction.
However all of us, even before noble attainments and without reading the entire body of work of the Theravada can begin to understand the truths right now. The texts pertain to life as it really is. In the sutta we are discussing, another section says
“And what, bhikkhus, is the nutriment for the arising of unarisen doubt and for the increase and expansion of arisen doubt? There are, bhikkhus, things that are the basis for doubt: frequently giving careless attention to them is the nutriment for the arising of unarisen doubt and for the increase and expansion of arisen doubt.
And this can be seen to be true, if/when doubt should arise.
A post was split to a new topic: Ill trained in the Abhidhamma,
From pāraṅgamasutta
(https://suttacentral.net/sn45.34/en/sujato)
yesaṃ sambodhiyaṅgesu
sammā cittaṃ subhāvitaṃAnd those whose minds are rightly developed
in the awakening factors
For suttas where passaddha bhāva of the rūpakāya is especially apparent, see paṭhamagilānasutta etc. Where Mahākassapa Thera etc rise up from their Illness after hearing about the awakening factors.
Also think about this very carefully,
What about non returners that finish the job in immaterial spheres?
2 Likes
I will not be inclined to agree, for the Dictionaries indicate that it differeth in what it signifieth—being able to refer either to the material aspect, the mental aspect, or at times the assemblage of all five khandhas, etc.
This, without even the slightest allusion that the Commentarial interpretation both accordeth with and determineth the classification in accordance with the Abhidhammic perspective. However, I shall not burden myself with the labour of shedding light upon that, for there is no profit in this, seeing that you shall not comprehend it in the first place. It would be like attempting to fill a vessel riddled with holes, with water.
The Suttas refer to the subjective conceptual apprehensions that one might form based upon one’s own understanding, and not to the Commentarial exposition; therein lieth a reasonable cause for placing the former as the weakest authority among the four standards — moreover, By the heavens, you do not comprehend the nature of the commentaries within Theravāda. There are ancient texts likewise; have you not asked yourself why we do not follow them also?, if antiquity be the standard, according to your saying.
And here we are with the oft-repeated, banal card of employing the Kesamutti Sutta whilst ignorant of the fact that it was addressed to the Kalamas—who were non-Buddhists, confounded by sundry teachers arriving in their town with conflicting doctrines, and to whom the Buddha’s counsel was specially tailored as spiritual seekers yet to find the path. For those who have already taken refuge in the Triple Gem, and have taken the One Most Great, the Light of this world, the sole Guide, the manner of approach differeth.
The common misuse of that sutta as a warrant for “Buddhist skepticism” doth grievously miss its original context and intended audience. And I shall say it truly—it is the text most grievously text to misconstruction, mindlessly parroted among those who utter it unwittingly.