Who Keeps the Word
Once the teacher is dead, his words survive only in what disciples remember and recite. How a later monk can tell the Buddha's word from anyone else's is the question the commentary answers before it explains a single discourse.
Buddhaghosa starts with history because authority depends on it. He tells how, after the Buddha's death, Mahākassapa chose the monks for a council at Rājagaha, questioned Upāli on the discipline and Ānanda on the discourses, and had the assembly recite what they answered. Where his sources disagree, as on how Ānanda arrived, he records both. For anything that turns up later he lays down tests: compare it with the three collections and with restraint from the passions, and rank the teachers' views, and finally one's own opinion, below the texts.
- teaching
- religious authority
- interpretation
- monastic discipline
- arahantship
- knowledge
Enter a dialogue
- After the Buddha's death, Mahākassapa questions Upāli on the discipline and Ānanda on the discourses while the monks recite. Why open a commentary with that council?
- Your sources disagree whether Ānanda, newly awakened, appeared at his seat in the council or came through the air. Why record both rather than choose?
- A saying offered as the Buddha's must fit the scriptures and the restraint of the passions, you rule. What if it passes one test and fails the other?
- Among your four sources of authority, a commentator's own opinion ranks last, below the scriptures and the teachers. Why distrust the one voice he hears most clearly?
- At the council, the assembly's silence counts as its approval. Why does a teaching need a whole chorus of reciters rather than one trusted memory?