I listen to a few teachers that come from a Suttas only perspective. A “you can’t trust anything out side the Nikayas and Viniya” sort of teaching. I’m not taking a side here or trying to debate, but wondering how new is this idea? In terms of, is it a recent development with in the last few centuries? Is it even a widely taught approach?
That was the perspective of the Sautrāntika school of Buddhism way back in ancient times, so it’s definitely not new, though the school did die out as a separate sect. Why do you ask?
That advice is coming from outside of the nikayas lol
1 Like
Idk. I was just wondering, probably bc most teachers I follow subscribe to that idea. Ajahn Nyanamoli , Ven Dhammavuddho for example. And if I’m not mistaken (haven’t followed him in a while) but I believe Thanissaro… I’ve only been practicing for 3 years so it’s all I’ve really been exposed to. I’ve never heard anyone express the opposite. “ No, you must STUDY the commentaries”
This attitude was (and still is) fairly common in Burma (and even to some extent Sri Lanka), where a lot of the modern, Theravada meditation lineages popular in the West came from.
2 Likes
I like Ven Analayo’s comments on this video about different traditions and how to view them.
1 Like
I would add that debates (friendly and otherwise) about the authenticity of source texts and scriptures as a means of rationalizing specific doctrines and practices is common to all spiritual and wisdom traditions.
Alas, the aspiring practitioner journeys through the “so what?” of it on their own as this musters the resolve and dedication toward a fully self-arrived cognizance. The so-what sorting is supported within community, ideally. But at the end of the day, no one can do it for me.
I realize this is tangential to your question but it did prompt the reflection 
.
Something to keep in mind (and it may be the difference between advice that is helpful and advice that is too extreme) is to find a responsible teacher whose work can be traced back to the suttas and vinaya as opposed to “don’t trust anything outside” of them. A good teacher would be diligent to draw out the meanings from the suttas within the context of the listener’s experience, which implies an extension of/relationship with what is explicitly written in those ancient texts. There needs to be some leeway in order to work within the grey area between the experience as it is currently understood and what is found in the suttas. If that leeway is blocked through some absolute attempt to adhere only to the suttas, it is less about development and more about holding to an external measure.
Isn’t the question self contradictory? One rejects one set of teachers because “they aren’t the Buddha. What they’ve said is later addition” , for the other set of teachers who live even further away (both in distance and time) from the Buddha.
Your best option in that case , IMHO, is just to read all the suttas rather than relying on the commentaries.
Yes. And this is a good argument for taking the classic commentaries seriously.
Why should we assume those practicing today, 2500 years after the Buddha is thought to have taught, understand more than those wrestling with the teachings 1000 years after?
Certainly not because of internet searches and ai.
4 Likes
Yes. And this is a good argument for taking the classic commentaries seriously.
Why should we assume those practicing today, 2500 years after the Buddha is thought to have taught, understand more than those wrestling with the teachings 1000 years after?
Exactly. Not only that, some commentaries are claimed to come from direct students of the Buddha, or from students of those students. Until one invents a time machine/television/recording), This is Early Buddhism as it gets…
2 Likes