I’m thinking more along the lines of incomplete rather than flawed. So, for example, Einstein couldn’t really accept quantum mechanics. It just didn’t sit right in his mind because it works in ways that don’t make sense in the world of classical physics. Einstein was instrumental in developing the basic premises of quantum mechanics along with Bohr, but he just didn’t like what we ended up with. He spent most of late career working on it, but he could never find the flaw that his intuition told him was there. Most people feel the same way when they learn about QM, but we’re still working on it. Einstein left us with problems like this. It’s not like there’s nothing left to do in physics after Einstein, but what Einstein did give us has stood the test of a 100 years of scrutiny.
To turn back to Buddhism, Abhidharma and other types of Buddhist literature like the Jatakas were all pursuing those unanswered questions that the Buddha left behind. His teaching didn’t seem complete. That work that Buddhists after him did led to the developments that we have today. Of course, not all of it is necessarily on the right track, but there were important innovations that resulted, like the altruistic ethic that was popularized by Mahayana Buddhists later. People generally want to cast aside Abhidharma texts because they are difficult to comprehend today, but there was a reason Buddhists wrote those texts as well.
Naive question: have people reached the level of Arahant practicing in the Mahayana tradition? What about in Zen or others? I’m wondering if that can be a sort of litmus test of the validity of a tradition.
Thank you for clarifying. I wonder if the Sīsapāvana Sutta (SN 56.31) is relevant here? I see that it has a parallel, but no English translation.
Yes I agree. Even if we don’t accept that the Buddha taught Abhidhamma/Abhidharma I still think it is useful. If the Buddha did not teach it then it is merely the Theras simply trying to flesh out and elaborate on the Dhamma, possibly in response to criticism from other religions/philosophies. It coming from the Theras and not the Buddha directly doesn’t mean it is useless, IMO. I think in the end any approach to the Dhamma will end up with a form of Abhidhamma/Abhidharma, since there will be a need to explain in greater detail what is in the suttas. Even the Sautrāntikas ended up developing their own quasi-Abhidharma I believe. I myself find the Theravāda Abhidhamma most useful, although I must admit I have departed from it in some ways as of late (nāmarūpa being one example).
To go back to the OP, I see Mahāyāna as merely another Abhidhamma like enterprise in the sense of trying to interpret and capture what the Dhamma means and how to apply that understanding. The pali suttas and Theravāda will always be my spiritual home and I feel the Visuddhimagga will always inform my practice, but thanks to some interactions over the last few months and some wider reading I can also appreciate Mahāyāna and now have a better understanding of where they are coming from even if I don’t always agree.
In the end we all share the same religion. We all have faith in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha and so we are all on this journey together. I think it’s best to focus on what unites us rather than what divides us be we Theravāda, Mahāyāna or those who identify more as being simply EBT. Disparaging each other certainly isn’t helpful, and I say that as someone who has engaged in that behaviour in the past which I now regret.
One pedantic point of correction, and perhaps I will be corrected for wrongly correcting, but I think you mean “relativity” instead of classical physics, which I think is more associated with Newton’s age. Unless I am the one using the term wrong.
Tattvasiddhiśāstra I believe is the most famous of those, but Kośabhāṣya is actually a more famous one of these. The problem with Kośabhāṣya as a Sautrāntika text full-stop is that we find Sautrāntika intermingled with classical Vaibhāṣika Sarvāstivāda Buddhism in it. Though there is no such thing as a “pure” independent Sautrāntika text, Tattvasiddhi is moreso that than Kośabhāṣya.
It is in Kośabhāṣya that Ven Vasubandhu makes the Sautrāntika assertion that the apprehension of the third noble truth is nibbāna itself and that knowledge of the path, the fourth truth, is born from that. Compare this model with the Theravādin model of four noble truths followed by gotrabhū, contact with nibbāna, etc. In that system, the third noble truth itself is not the unconditioned itself. I wrongly misrepresented this to you once as the Sarvāstivāda position because it was in Abhidharmakośabhāṣya and forgot to correct myself on DhammaWheel, but now that is a side note.
It is in Kośabhāṣya that Ven Vasubandhu makes the Sautrāntika assertion that the apprehension of the third noble truth is nibbāna itself and that knowledge of the path, the fourth truth, is born from that. Compare this model with the Theravādin model of four noble truths followed by gotrabhū, contact with nibbāna, etc. In that system, the third noble truth itself is not the unconditioned itself. I wrongly misrepresented this to you once as the Sarvāstivāda position because it was in Abhidharmakośabhāṣya and forgot to correct myself on DhammaWheel, but now that is a side note.
It could actually be both though (a text which contains both Sautrantika and Mahasamghika influences)
Xuanzang says the author of this text originally studied under a Sautrantika and then went to live with a Mahasamghika group. Interesting fella.
Regarding an Abhidharma work that is purely “Sautrantika”, I think the best example is Skandhila’s Abhidharmavatara. It contains numerous Agama quotations and refers to the Vaibhasika school as a separate school (thus, it truly sees itself as not being Vaibhasika).
Luckily, it has been translated as “Entrance into the Supreme Doctrine: Skandhila’s Abhidharmāvatāra” by KL Dhammajoti.
You are not “wrong”, but I would say that you are using the term in a “historical” way, where classical=old, modern=new. But in physics today the key distinction is “classical versus quantum”. Electromagnetism, Newtonian mechanics and Relativistic mechanics and gravity (general relativity or competing models) are “classical”, as opposed to “quantum”.
I was trying to find a clever connection between these classifications and Buddhist history and thought (Abhidhamma/Commentary/Mahayana), but it’s escaping me right now…
Given the nature of impermanence, and the human character trait of proliferation, I’m actually amazed that the teachings have been so well preserved for such a long time. The discipline and restraint involved with this is simply breath taking Homage to the Sangha
Even taking into account the developments and evolution over time of Mahayana and Vajrayana, they still retain a clear focus on the samsara transcending qualities of the Buddha. While I personally find the EBTs my vehicle ‘of choice’, I do see clear links to practice modes across traditions. For example, I never used to understand the focus on Puja’s. Now I perceive that there is an underlying similarity with the practice of Brahmaviharas, that underlies them. Being aware of this, and the fact that they can result in similar mind states, opens me to accepting a much broader range of practices as having a positive effect in destroying defilements. As such, they are clearly focused on liberation from the suffering in Samsara, just within a different framework.
For me the most important point is about acknowledging the historicity of texts and to ensure that the teachings of the historical Buddha (the EBT’s) remain intact and available to all practitioners, as the foundation and bedrock of Buddhism. As long as there is ‘access’ to the Buddhas teachings, beings with little dust in their eyes can find them and follow them if they choose to do so - just as in the time of the Buddha originally.
Tricky thing is though that those who claim to be enlightened rarely are and those who are enlightened rarely claim it. So, until we invent an MRI scan that can tell us who is enlightened, we’ll have to study what the Buddha said about the goal, and observe teachers carefully to see whether their teachings and behavior line up.
The Buddha seems to have spent most of his teaching life - if not all - around the Ganges River Basin in North East India. This is an area close to the then worlds largest highway i.e. The Great Silk Road. When he told his disciples to go out and spread his Dhamma it seems to me that the first places they would have headed for would have been that great highway. So it would follow that the Dhamma would have headed along that direction; i.e. to such countries now known as Afghanistan, China etc. The significant point being that where Buddhist traditions still hold they are of the Mahayana type schools.
The Theravada tradition came out of Sri Lanka; a long way from the teaching locality of the Buddha.
As a Theravada monk I appreciate the condensed nature in which Sila, Samadhi and Panna is laid out in the Pali Cannon.
However Pali is not a spoken language but a textual one. We cannot be sure what the native language of the Buddha was; many guess it may have been Prakrit Maghadi. It was certainly a dialect that made his teachings easy for people to understand.
Further, the Mahayana traditions are full of stories and anecdotes that display loving kindness and compassion.
The Theravada tradition seems dry and void of human heart. Further in countries like Thailand the practice of Dhamma is bound up with so much superstitious nonsense e.g. sacred string and water rituals; Pali chanting when the native population speak Thai. And some of the most insane practices I have seen in my life e.g. people climbing into coffins and getting out believing they have been reborn.
I can see value in both Theravada and Mahayana. But I am strongly opposed to the obsesssion with Pali study. My former abbott had a PhD in Pali. He was filmed watching a pornograhic video and appears to have been involved in sexual relations with at least one woman who he used to bring over from Myanmar. Further when he was driven out he is alledged to have taken millions of Thai Baht with him that was not donated to him but rather to finance the expansion of the meditation section and the building of more kutis and a new kitchen. When his case was raised before the Sangha Council he was allowed to remain a monk although not in Lampang. Why? Probably on account of him having a PhD in Pali studies. And what was his achievement? Yet another Thai translation of the Visuddhi Magga. When I was in Sri Lanka many monks told me that Buddhagosa had a legend of also being a bad monk.
The Buddha most certainly never taught Abhidhamma. His teachings were simple enough for a humble potter to understand.
Pali ‘scholarship’ is to my mind one of the most Dhamma destructive forces at work in the Buddhist world. The Buddha wanted everyone to understand his Dhamma: not just a small group of self imagined elitist people.
If people want to learn a language then why not English? Almost all of the Theravada and Mahayana texts are available in English. That way we can have access to all the major forms of Buddha’s teachings
Tan Ajahn Amaro also touches on this topic in his book Roots & Currents, in chapter 13;
A student of Buddhism asked: ‘Which do you think is the best path: that of the
arahant or that of the bodhisattva?’ Ajahn Sumedho replied: ‘That kind of question is
asked by people who understand absolutely nothing about Buddhism!’
@Linda, I use a free software called youtube-dl for downloading Youtube videos. To just get the audio you can pass it the --extract-audio option when using it.
I often find it convenient to just listen to the audio of a YouTube talk when out for a walk or exercising or commuting. The software you mention definitely looks interesting; I think I’ll check it out. It definitely seems more general and powerful than the website I mentioned (perhaps with a steeper learning curve though ).
Homage to the Sangha 
).