"Rett" wrote
> >Nina: you can fare safely with Buddhaghosa!
>
> It is important to be careful even with Buddhaghosa. There are places
> where his interpretation is clearly wrong. That is not to diminish
> the great value of his commentaries.
Indeed, I think it is important to remember the limitations of
commentators -- they are stating what they, according to their traditions,
thought the text means, but obviously that is no guarantee that their
interpretation accurately represents the intentions of the original "author"
of the text. Unfortunately, the only surviving, complete commentaries on
the nikayas / agamas are found in the Theravada tradition. However, as I
have mentioned here before, I am working on a text by Asanga which is a
thematic commentary o the Samyukta-agama. Given that approx 90% of the
contents of the SA correspond closely in all essentials to the SN, it is
surprising the huge gulf that separates Asanga's understanding of the texts
and that of his almost contemporary Buddhaghosa -- apart from a few obvious
points, there is virtually no agreement between the two. So who should we
trust if we want to understand the meaning of the scriptural texts as the
"author" intended ? Unless one is a Theravadin, why especially privilege
that tradition if alternative interpretations are also occasionally
available ?
Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge