Yes, we can, including other early Buddhist teachings
(cf. The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism: A Comparative Study Based on the Sutra-anga portion of the Pali Samyutta-Nikaya and the Chinese Samyuktagama, by Choong Mun-keat, in Series: Beitrage zur Indologie Band 32; Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden, 2000).
I think I disagree with that. The commentaries are clearly sectarian texts. It will be better one seeks an understanding of early Buddhist teachings by studying the early Buddhist texts comparatively, particularly SN/SA suttas. Cf. the above-mentioned book, pp. 7-11.
Yes, we can, including other early Buddhist teachings
(cf. The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism: A Comparative Study Based on the Sutra-anga portion of the Pali Samyutta-Nikaya and the Chinese Samyuktagama , by Choong Mun-keat, in Series: Beitrage zur Indologie Band 32; Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden, 2000).
The suttas are stripped down teachings, to aid with memorisation. I doubt the Buddha’s teaching would be so short and lacking in detail, accept for a few occasions. His teachings would have been delivered like our Dhamma talks of today. The conversations he had we will never know in full. So, in order to understand the suttas they have to be explained to fill in the detail. Once you have done that you have commented on them. Given that we place faith in the sangha, and assuming there were at least stream-enterers if not higher among the sangha of old, I see no reason to reject works such as the Visuddhimagga, the commentaries and other like texts in favour of modern reconstructions of what the suttas mean. The commentaries stretch back to just around 2-3 centuries after the parinibbana. In my view they are a valuable source for understanding what the Buddha taught. Now of course, there is sectarianism in Buddhism. There were schisms, but we know what those differences were. That means we can detect an obvious sectarian view within a text. For example, if we read a Sarvastivadin text that stresses the tri-temporal reality of the dhammas then we can surmise that this was a doctrinal understanding for that school. We can do that without jettisoning the whole commentarial corpus and its view of the Dhamma. To focus on the suttas alone, and to even to go to the extreme (in my view) of only focusing on suttas with direct parallels, would be to severely handicap ourselves when it comes to understanding and practicing the Dhamma.
I would also add that to completely tear down and ignore the abdhidhamma and the commentaries with a view to focus on the suttas alone was and is a sectarian position. The modern neo- sutravadin position of today is just as much sectarian as the sautrāntika of old. The sautrāntikas of course eventually having to resort to writing their own forms of abdhidhamma and commentaries in the end, since the suttas needed explaining. That is to say, in the end they had to be commented upon.
I think the commentaries and abhidhamma are new ideas, not found in the SN/SA sutras. They are also not useful and practical in the sati practices in daily life.
Hello JiminBC. I’m not sure if this is considered a commentary. It’s certainly a wonderful teaching of the practice a Anapanasati. It’s a series of 10 talks by Bhante Sujato. Here is the link for part 1…hopefully you can trace the next 9 parts from this:
I think the commentaries and abhidhamma are new ideas, not found in the SN/SA sutras. They are also not useful and practical in the sati practices in daily life.
The basis for the Abdhidhamma and the commentaries is in the suttas, so I wouldn’t say that they are totally new ideas since they draw heavily on that material. They are an interpretation of the Dhamma/suttas, yes. That is no different to modern “early buddhists” who also interpret and explain the Dhamma based on the suttas. Out of interest, have you read much of the Abhidhamma or commentaries? I ask because i’m interested in why you think they are not useful for practice?
Hello JiminBC. The metta retreat talks were given in 2007. On santifm.org, go to audio dhamma, then Archive audio then retreats, then 2007 Metta Meditation Course. Best wishes, Sanghamitta
It seems not really useful and practical. I think it will be better to follow SN 54.1 sutta (as mentioned before, cf. pp. 225-7 in The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism). When practising it, one does not have to think about the “steps” theory. One centres mainly on practice and experience for individuals in a practical sense, rather than on idealistic and systematic theory.
This was a specific question asked in the Q&A category. The solution was provided in post 2, and subsequent resources provided. For further discussion, please use an existing topic, or start a new one. It seems that this is actually also being discussed here
Given that all posts are archived, and that the highest use of the site is to search out answers using the archived topics, it is important to keep topics and posts ordered.
Many Thanks
@JimInBC given that you asked the question, has it been answered to your satisfaction?. If so I will close this topic
I can also move the group of relevant posts to that thread, to keep them all in one place
