Korea Journal of Buddhist Studies ISSN:1598-0642(Print) 불교학연구

It is necessary to discuss whether the commentaries(aṭṭhakatha) or Visuddhimagga can make reliable background of the samatha and vipassanā meditation practice or not. Because the proposed method in the commentaries cannot be coincident with the Pāli-Nikāya or actual meditation method. For example, Samatha bhāvanā has 40 kinds of meditative objects which are collected by Buddhaghosa in the Visuddhimagga. ‘Kammaṭṭhāna’ is used to mean subjects of meditation as well as the methods of practising them. It is the general sense in which the word is used in later texts including the Visuddhimagga and commentaries. How the word came to be used in this sense is not quite clear. The term kammaṭṭhāna does not occur in the four major Nikāyas in a religious sense or in the technical sense of objects of meditation. In this way, many buddhist scholars and meditation masters are apt to follow the traditional way of interpretations as the textual explanation such as commentaries(aṭṭhakatha) and Visuddhimagga, etc. Sometimes, they accept the explanations of the Buddhaghosa as the Buddha’s taught itself without comparative study of the Pāli-Nikāya(original text) and commentaries. Therefore, in this study, there is an attempt to find out what is the samatha and vipassanā exactly in the Pāli-Nikāya, and to examine whether the commentarial interpretation. Also practices have deviated from the original practice, if so what these deviations are, and what could have led to such deviation and so on. Furthermore, this study will be concerned about the problems of interpretation in relation to similarities and differences between the Visuddhimagga and Pāli-Nikāya. And it is presenting also some assumptions that might help solution of these problems.