Печать

[янея]

Большое спасибо за ответ!

[Ассаджи]

В современном мире встречаются крайние позиции, - безоговорочное и безусловное буквальное принятие всех Комментариев, и произвольная псевдонаучная вивисекция Сутт с отсечением неудобных частей.

В самой традиции нет таких крайностей. Вполне допустимо не принимать личных мнений тех или иных учителей, или даже мнения в Комментарии, если они явно противоречат Суттам. Но тут нужно быть очень аккуратным и выверять доводы и обоснования.

Из Махапариниббана сутты:

""Idha pana, bhikkhave, bhikkhu evaṃ vadeyya - 'amukasmiṃ nāma āvāse sambahulā therā bhikkhū viharanti bahussutā āgatāgamā dhammadharā vinayadharā mātikādharā. Tesaṃ me therānaṃ sammukhā sutaṃ sammukhā paṭiggahitaṃ - ayaṃ dhammo ayaṃ vinayo idaṃ satthusāsanan'ti. Tassa, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno bhāsitaṃ neva abhinanditabbaṃ ...pe... na ca vinaye sandissanti, niṭṭhamettha gantabbaṃ - 'addhā, idaṃ na ceva tassa bhagavato vacanaṃ; tesañca therānaṃ duggahitan'ti. Itihetaṃ, bhikkhave, cha.d.deyyātha. Tāni ce sutte osāriyamānāni ...pe... vinaye ca sandissanti, niṭṭhamettha gantabbaṃ - 'addhā, idaṃ tassa bhagavato vacanaṃ; tesañca therānaṃ suggahitan'ti. Idaṃ, bhikkhave, tatiyaṃ mahāpadesaṃ dhāreyyātha.
 
Потом, монахи, может сказать некто: "Там-то проживают старейшины, глубокие мудрецы, блюдущие веру, как гласит предание, сведущие в Дхамме и в правилах Винаи. Из уст тех старейшин я слышал, от них узнал. Такова Дхамма, такова Виная, вот Учение Учителя". Монахи, услышав те слова, никогда не восхваляйте, никогда не порицайте сказавшего. Не восторгаясь и не порицая, хорошо изучив каждое слово и каждый слог, – следует сличить их с Суттами и сверить с правилами Винаи. И если те слова не согласны с Суттами, если не совпадают они с правилами Винаи, вы примите такое решение: "Право, – это не слово Благословенного и ошибочно понято оно старейшинами". И тогда, монахи, вы отбросьте то слово. Если же, монахи, оно согласно с Суттами, и совпадает с правилами Винаи, вы примите такое решение: "Право, – это слово Благословенного и истинно оно понято старейшинами". Таким образом, монахи, придерживайтесь третьего великого отношения."

http://dhamma.ru/canon/dn/dn16.htm#_Toc42753358

перевод отрывка Параджика-канда-аттхакатхи (I 231) в статье Руперта Гетина "Was Buddhaghosa a Theravadin?"

"'The view of the teachers' (ācariyavāda) refers to the series of expositions of meaning (aṭṭhakathā) constituted by the judgements passed down separately from the canonical text and established by the 500 arahats who were compilers of the Teaching. 'Individual opinion' refers to exposition in a form established by one's own inference, reasoning and good understanding separate from Sutta, the principles of Sutta, and the tradition of teachers. The entire [body of] opinion of elders (sabbo theravādo) that has come down in the commentaries to the Suttanta, Abhidhamma and Vinaya is also called 'individual opinion'. But in adopting an individual opinion one should explain it without holding to it stubbornly and come to a conclusion; the evidence should be explained by considering the meaning of the canonical text and applying the meaning to the canonical text; individual opinion should fit with the view of the teachers; if it fits and agrees with this, it should be accepted; but if it does not fit and agree, it should not be accepted. For it is individual opinion that is certainly weakest of all; the view of the teachers is firmer, but is also should fit with the principles of Sutta; when it fits and agrees with this it should be accepted, otherwise it should not; the principles of Sutta are firmer than the view of the teachers."

Ācariyavādo nāma dhammasaṅgāhakehi pañcahi arahantasatehi ṭhapitā pāḷivinimuttā okkantavinicchayappavattā aṭṭhakathātanti.

Attanomati nāma sutta-suttānuloma-ācariyavāde muñcitvā anumānena attano anubuddhiyā nayaggāhena upaṭṭhitākārakathanaṃ.

Apica suttantābhidhammavinayaṭṭhakathāsu āgato sabbopi theravādo ‘‘attanomati’’ nāma. Taṃ pana attanomatiṃ gahetvā kathentena na daḷhaggāhaṃ gahetvā voharitabbaṃ. Kāraṇaṃ sallakkhetvā atthena pāḷiṃ, pāḷiyā ca atthaṃ saṃsanditvā kathetabbaṃ. Attanomati ācariyavāde otāretabbā. Sace tattha otarati ceva sameti ca, gahetabbā. Sace neva otarati na sameti, na gahetabbā. Ayañhi attanomati nāma sabbadubbalā. Attanomatito ācariyavādo balavataro.

Ācariyavādopi suttānulome otāretabbo. Tattha otaranto samentoyeva gahetabbo, itaro na gahetabbo. Ācariyavādato hi suttānulomaṃ balavataraṃ.

[Ассаджи]

23. Buddhaghosa Thera and the Compilation of the Pali Commentaries

The compilation of the Pali Atthakathaa (commentaries) by Buddhaghosa Thera is another important event in the annals of Sri Lanka, which marks the progress of Buddhism. As has already been stated, the Pitakas or the teachings of the Buddha which were being handed down orally were committed to writing in 397 b.e. (89 BCE) and the commentaries on these, composed in Sinhalese, were also committed to writing at this time. Since this period much by way of exegetical works in Sinhalese was added from time to time and during the next five hundred years literary activity progressed considerably. By about 896 b.e. (410 a.c.), when King Mahaanaama reigned at Anuraadhapura, the fame of Buddhist literature in Sri Lanka was well recognized throughout India and tradition mentions Sinhalese Buddhist monks visiting India, China and other countries and introducing the literature produced in Sri Lanka. Monks from India and China also visited Anuraadhapura during this time to procure Buddhist books.

It was about this time that Buddhaghosa Thera came to Sri Lanka in the reign of King Mahaanaama (410-432). Mahaanaama succeeded to the throne 79 years after the death of King Sirimeghavanna, during whose reign the Sacred Tooth Relic was brought to Sri Lanka, and three rulers, namely Jetthatissa II, Buddhadaasa and Upatissa I, reigned in between. The story of Buddhaghosa is given in detail both in the Mahaava.msa and the Sinhalese works composed in later times. According to these sources Buddhaghosa was a brahman youth who was born in the vicinity of Buddha Gayaa and became well known as an exponent of Veda and philosophy. He was such a proficient scholar that in his youth he was able to assert his knowledge among the great scholars of the time. He traveled from place to place, from one seat of learning to another, from one set of teachers to another, triumphantly asserting his knowledge and scholarship.

At a well-known Buddhist monastery at Tamluk, he met Revata Mahaathera, one well versed in the doctrines and philosophy of Buddhism. There he entered into discussions and found not a peer but one superior to him in knowledge and understanding. This made him join the Order of Buddhist monks as a pupil of Revata Mahaathera. At this vihaara he studied Buddhist philosophy diligently and produced a treatise on Buddhism, Ñaa.nodaya; he also planned to compose commentaries on the Abhidhamma and the suttas. His teacher at this stage advised him to go to Anuraadhapura before undertaking this work, as he said that in Lanka were preserved not only the Tipitaka, the teachings of the Buddha himself, but also the Sinhalese commentaries and various expositions of the teachings which were very valuable and of high repute.

Buddhaghosa Thera proceeded to Sri Lanka and stayed at the Mahaapadhaanaghara of the Mahaavihaara. He then asked the monks at Anuraadhapura for access to books for the compilation of commentaries. The learned theras at Anuraadhapura tested his knowledge and ability by setting him a thesis on which he compiled the well-known Visuddhimagga. They were so pleased with this work that he was given facilities for his projected work and books were placed at his disposal for the preparation of Pali commmentaries.

The old Sinhalese commentaries from which Buddhaghosa drew material for the compilation of his Pali commentaries are occasionally named in his works. The Mahaa (or Muula) Atthakathaa occupied the foremost position among them while the Mahaa-paccari Atthakathaa and the Kurundi Atthakathaa were also important. These three major works probably contained exegetical material on all the three Pitakas. Apart from these there were other works like the Sankhepatthakathaa, Vinayatthakathaa, Abhidhammatthakathaa and separate commentaries on the four AAgamas or Nikaayas, namely, the Diigha Nikaaya Atthakathaa, Majjhima Nikaaya Atthakathaa, Samyutta Nikaaya Atthakathaa, and the Anguttara Nikaaya Atthakathaa. References to numerous other sources like the Andhakatthakathaa, the aacariyaa (or Teachers), and the Poraanaa (or Ancient Masters) are also found in Buddhaghosa's works.

Utilizing the copious material of these commentaries and other sources, which sometimes contained conflicting views and contradictory assertions, Buddhaghosa compiled his Pali commentaries including all authoritative decisions, sometimes giving his own views but leaving out unnecessary details and repetitions as well as irrelevant matter. The first of such commentaries was the Samantapaasaadikaa on the Vinaya Pitaka. The Kankhaavitaranii on the Paatimokkha of the Vinaya Pitaka was compiled later. These books were followed by the commentaries on the four Nikaayas, the Sumangalavilaasinii on the Diigha Nikaaya, the Papañca-suudanii on the Majjhima Nikaaya, the Saaratthappakaasinii on the Samyutta Nikaaya, and the Manorathapuura.nii on the Anguttara Nikaaya. The Dhammapadaññhakathaa on the Dhammapada, the Jaatakaññhakathaa on the Jaataka, and the Paramatthajotikaa on the Khuddaka Nikaaya, are also ascribed to him. On the books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, Buddhaghosa compiled the Aññhasaalinii on the Dhammasanganii, the Sammohavinodanii on the Vibhanga, and the Pañcappakara.naññhakathaa on the other five books.

The voluminous literature which Buddhaghosa produced exists to this day and is the basis for the explanation of many crucial points of Buddhist philosophy which without them would have been unintelligible. His commentaries become all the more important since the old Sinhalese commentaries gradually went out of vogue and were completely lost after the tenth century. Buddhaghosa's activities gave an impetus to the learning of Pali in Sri Lanka which resulted in the production of many other Pali commentaries and other literary works, and also established the pre-eminence of Sri Lanka as the home of Theravaada Buddhism.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/perera/wheel100.html#sect-23

[Ассаджи]

Досточтимый Буддхагхоса так ссылается на комментарии, на которые он опирается:

"The prologue and the colophon of the Samantapasadika furnish us with a good deal of information. Buddhaghosa's own words in the opening stanzas eloquently speak of the commentary he is about to compile. As is usually the case with all his commentaries, it is by no means an original exegesis, but a restatement of the material available to him in the Sihala Atthakatha, for, in his own words it is a navasangahitavannana, "a re-compiled commentary" (Smp. P.T.S., 1414). His implicit faith in the pubbacariya ,"the teachers of yore," and his reliance on their authority in his exposition of the Vinaya are clearly expressed in his opening words (see Smp. i, n. i).

Both in the prologue and in the colophon he acknowledges his indebtedness to the three main versions of the Sihala Atthakatha, the Maha (or Mula) -Atthakatha, the Mahapaccariya, and the Kurundi which he studied under the "wise Elder Buddhamitta who was proficient in the Vinaya" (Smp. P.T.S., 1415). This indebtedness to the Sihala Atthakatha is true of all his commentaries, for Buddhaghosa constantly refers to his commentaries being based on the earlier commentaries available in the language of the Island ; e.g. in the colophons to the commentaries on the four prose Nikayas the following hemi-stisches occur, among other parallel stanzas: sa hi Maha-Atthakathaya saram adaya nitthita maya, "for, it was compiled by me drawing the essence of the Maha-Atthakatha," and, Mul'atthakathaya saram adaya maya imam karontena, "while I was compiling this drawing the essence of the Mula-Atthakatha," both of which refer to the Mahavihara version of the Sihala Atthakatha."

http://www.archive.org/stream/sacredbooksofbud21londuoft/sacredbooksofbud21londuoft_djvu.txt

Об источниках Аттхакатхи:

Sinhala and Dravidian Commentaries

Sīhalaṭṭhakathā was the name given to the Sinhala translations of the commentaries Mahinda had introduced to Ceylon. [26] Certain verses were, however, left unchanged in Pali. Although none of the Sinhala commentaries have come down to us, information regarding them can be gleaned from the Pali commentaries which displaced them, and from later works. [27]

The aṭṭhakathā referred to are: (1) Mahā-aṭṭhakathā or Mūla-aṭṭhakathā, also referred to as Aṭṭhakathā, (2) Uttaravihāra-aṭṭhakathā, (3) Mahā-paccariya-aṭṭhakathā, (4) Kurundī-aṭṭhakathā, (5) Andhakaṭṭhakathā, (6) Saṅkhepaṭṭhakathā, (7) Āgamaṭṭhakathā, (8) Porāṇaṭṭhakathā, (9) Pubbopadesaṭṭhakathā, or Pubbaṭṭhakathā, (10) Vinayaṭṭhakathā, (11) Suttantaṭṭhakathā, (12) Abhidhammaṭṭhakathā, (13) Sīhalamātikaṭṭhakathā, (14) Dīghaṭṭhakathā, (15) Majjhimaṭṭhakathā, (16) Saṃyuttaṭṭhakathā, (17) Aṅguttaraṭṭhakathā, (18) Jātakaṭṭhakathā and (19) Vibhaṅgappakaraṇassa Sīhalaṭṭhakathā.

Mahinda would have introduced the traditional commentaries, but during the centuries that followed his arrival commentaries had developed, and at the time Buddhaghosa arrived in the island, i.e. in the early fifth century, there were commentaries belonging to different schools. The most important of them and the one on which Buddhaghosa relied most was the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā or Mūla-aṭṭhakathā, [28] the commentary of the Mahāvihāra, the orthodox and traditional school in Ceylon. This is expressly named as the foundation for Buddhaghosa’s commentaries on the Vinaya [29] and the first four nikāyas. [30] Quotations from it are also found in other commentaries. [31] The Uttaravihāra-aṭṭhakathā belonged to the Uttaravihāra or the Abhayagirivihāra, the school which was the rival of Mahāvihāra. This does not appear to have been even consulted by the Pali commentators as no mention of it is made by them. It is referred to, however, in the Vaṃsatthappakāsinī where its variant readings from the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā are given. [32] There were also the Mahāpaccarī and the Kurundī-aṭṭhakathā which, as stated in the Samantapāsādikā, [33] were also written in Sinhala. According to the Saddhammasaṅgaha, [34] while the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā was the traditional commentary fixed at the first Council and introduced to Ceylon and translated into Sinhala by Mahinda, the Mahāpaccarī and Kurundī-aṭṭhakathā originated in Ceylon. The Mahāpaccarī was so called because it was composed on a raft in Ceylon, and the Kurundī was named after Kurundavelu-vihāra in Ceylon where it was composed. [35] We do not know to which school they belonged. [36] The Andhaka-aṭṭhakathā was very likely written in the Andhaka (Andhra) language. It may have belonged to the Andhaka school of south India as Buddhaghosa more often than not rejects its views. [37] The Saṅkhepa-aṭṭhakathā or ’Short Commentary,’ quoted in the Samantapāsādikā, if it is to be accepted as written in south India, [38] was probably also the product of a south Indian school. The Cullapaccarī, mentioned in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā, [39] was probably an abridgement of the Mahāpaccarī.

...

The Dhampiyā-aṭuvāgāṭäpadaya, a work dated in the tenth century A. C., contains quotations from these commentaries in the original Sinhalese (pp. 136, 148, 149).
...

Pali Commentaries

The Pali commentaries are to be dated from the first half of the fifth century A.C.

...

While these Pali commentaries drew their material from the Sinhala and Dravidian commentaries, they were not verbatim translations of them. This is quite evident from the manner in which the Pali commentaries have been compiled. Such expressions as Mahā-aṭṭhakathāyaṃ sāraṃ ādāya, Mūla-aṭṭhakathāyaṃ sāraṃ ādāya, Porāṇaṭṭhakathānaṃ sāraṃ ādāya (having taken the essence of …) in the epilogues of certain commentaries [122] where the source has been indicated, would suggest that the Pali commentaries were not mere translations of the corresponding Sinhala commentaries. The work of Buddhaghosa and others appears to have been to make a critical study not only of the different Sinhala and Dravidian commentaries, but also other sources of material, such as the canon and various traditions and opinions, and, to make a new commentary in Pali in the light of all the material available. The commentarial interpretation is often compared with the canonical, and where it disagrees it is rejected. [123] Even the narratives and episodes in the Pali commentaries do not always seem to have been taken from the Sinhala commentaries. Burlingame has discussed [124] how stories in the commentaries, including prose stories in the Jātaka-aṭṭhakathā, are to a great extent not translations from the Sinhala, but borrowings from and adaptations of pre-existing Pali material. Sten Konow has pointed out [125] that while some of the narratives in the Ceylonese commentaries and the chronicles are of Ceylon origin, others can be traced to a distinct Indian origin. Buddhaghosa’s quotations from the Dīpavaṃsa, a work generally dated after the Sinhala commentaries, [126] would show that he was not merely translating the original commentaries, but was making use of other available material, too, in compiling his own commentaries.

Buddhist Commentarial Literature
by L. R. Goonesekere

http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh113_Goonesekere_Buddhist-Commentarial-Literature.html

Ceylon Lectures Delivered As Extension Lectures In Ceylon In March-1944
by Barua, Beni Madhab

https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.57836/2015.57836.Ceylon-Lectures-Delivered-As-Extension-Lectures-In-Ceylon-In-March-1944#page/n95

[Теги:]

Теги: