I'd like to make my stand on the commentaries clearer.
I do not consider that *everything* that came from the commentaries to be entirely unreliable. I did mention before that I do refer to them. However, I can no longer have the same level of confidence in them as I do for the early suttas. Neither can I place them near the same level. I can only treat them as useful on their own merit, and not according to their reputation.
Heck, there are even some suttas that I can't honestly trust. I know that one of them is rather obviously edited: Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta (MN142). The Mahavihara Commentaries on the other hand introduce ideas unsupported and seemingly contradicted by the suttas, such as the idea that rebirth is necessarily immediate.
This reminds me of the Buddha's advise to the Kalamas to not go by "a collection of scriptures" (although this seems to contradict the somewhat dogmatic Four Great Standards.) This is a bit hard for me to accept, having placed so much faith in the Pali scriptures in the past, but evidence has been revealed to me and I have unwillingly but eventually gladly awaken from that slumber.