SC Next: Introduction to Abhidhamma

Hi Mat,

Are you sure you’re properly distinguishing the Canonical Abhidhamma from the later Commentaries? I think that difference is one of the important points that Bhante’s Introduction makes.

1 Like

It seems that is that it is nearly impossible to say where it all started to drift, ending up where it is now, in each country. I was discussing what could be termed the overall character or ‘flavour’ of the dhamma- and it feels to me the Abhidhamma is one of the first to clearly show a change of character from the original dhamma in the sutta pitaka.

with metta

This is well written and clear–I think ending it on a discussion of “criticism” is probably appropriate. I could be wrong about this but the abhidhamma seems to be especially “out of favor” right now at least in the States. I’ve heard a few prominent Ajahns tell lay people flat out to not read the abhidhamma. It seems like that is because they view it as unhelpful-- I don’t know if that is because they feel it was a “later creation” or what.

Hi Mat,

That’s certainly true, but I am continually surprised how this point is overlooked:

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen mind-moments, etc attributed to the Abhidhamma. It appears that many people who criticise the Abhidhamma have never actually read any of it, only the Visuddhimagga, Abhidhammattha Sangaha, etc. Actually, that also goes for many who like the “Abhidhamma”.

I’ve not spent a lot of time reading the Canonical Abhidhamma, since it is so dense, but, as the Introduction indicates, most of it seems to be an attempt to systematize the various lists and conditions in the Suttas.

2 Likes

This is one of the most irresponsible advise given by a monk.
I even encourage people to read Koran and Bible etc let alone Abhidhamma.

Just to give you a personal example. My encounter with the Abhidhamma (or I should say the comentaries on the Abhidhamma!) was through a class at the London Buddhist Vihara. The course is still on apparently, see here: http://www.londonbuddhistvihara.org/course/advclass_2017.htm

As you can see the title is: Buddhist Philosophy and Psychology - Abhidhamma
But the content is derived from the ‘Manual of Abhidhamma’! (see the reading advice at the bottom of the page). And if I remember well, the distinction was not made or clearly outlined at the beginning that there was many differences between the canonical Abhidhamma and later commentaries or manuals.

I attented only a couple of classes and I don’t want to misrepresent them, maybe they do emphasize the differences… but I did not experience that. And you can see that the title and outline of the course do not outline the difference.

And it seems that this is often the case on forums and in articles, as you mentioned yourself:

Hopefully, the perception will slowly change now…

Discussion about Sutta Abhidhamma Vs comentaries.

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/sutta-abhidhamma-vs-abhidhammatha-sanga-ha/4725

@sujato
Hi Bhante who is the “We”? The sentence reads a bit odd to me.
:slightly_smiling_face:

Thanks for these references. So it seems that this is a post-Buddhaghosan tradition.

But the verses use the feminine, so that’s awkward. And the Atthasalini speaks straightforwardly of her as “mother”. It seems to me like a late innovation in the tradition. It’s interesting from the perspective of changing gender attitudes, but we can fortunately circumvent it here with the gender-neutral “deity”.

This is an interesting point, complicated though by the fact that serious Abhidhamma study is quite common in Asia. Still, what is really striking to me is that in the suttas we see, as you say, a gradual spectrum of teachings from very simple to very difficult, while starting from the later books of the Khuddaka and the Abhidhamma, we see a huge gap between populist folk tales on the one hand, and extremely erudite treatises on the other. I don’t think the existence of difficult treatises is in itself a problem, but I think the gap is. The only book that really bridges this gap is the Milindapanha.

The most common term for school is nikāya. Of course this invites confusion with the separate use of the same word for a body of texts.

The Indic traditions use a variety of terms to refer to the notions that you bring up. as in the European sphere, some of these terms are neutral (“views”) while others are polemical (“heresy”). There is, of course, no one-to-one mapping of the terms—this is never possible in any form of translation—but it would be a mistake to view the use of these terms in translation as a mere imposition of western history. Clearly some schools of Buddhism regarded other schools as not merely incorrect but as “heretical”.

Yes, this seems to be a distinctly Thai tradition. I’m not sure how it originated, but it very common, and every monk knows how to recite the tikas of the Dhammasangini and the paccayas of the Patthana. Actually understanding them is rarer, but it’s quite common to hear the matikas, at least the kusalatika, used as a basis for a Dhamma talk.

Ahh, yes, this is an academic affectation, I will remove it.

1 Like

Dear Bhante,
Thank you very much for your time and effort. I know a lot of people who worship Abhidhamma to the total neglect of Suttas. I wish I can show them your essay and lead them in the right direction.
With Metta

I’m wondering whether such a jump is necessary for Nibbana in the first place or whether it obfuscates.

”…I went to a trustworthy nun.
She taught me the Dhamma:
aggregates, sense spheres, & elements.
Hearing the Dhamma,
I did as she said.
For seven days I sat in one spot,
absorbed in rapture & bliss.
On the eighth, I stretched out my legs,
having burst the mass
of darkness”. Thig 3.2

The sentence about ‘aggregates, sense spheres and elements’ is learning the basic features of experience (or phenomena) so that one may see them in one’s meditations. It serves a purpose and isn’t just to provide explanations of everything. It leads to nibbana. Too much detail and it tips into dry philosophy, intellectual superiority and more things to make me or mine from. Many people in my country of birth take delight in doing dhamma related activities but without much investment in personal development. It is easy to memorise texts (or even make sense of them) but hard to change oneself.

With metta

1 Like

Thank you dear Banthe for this great introduction.
I’ll like to suggest to add to the conclusion:

  • the Abhidhamma is not considered an EBT but SuttaCentral had made prior decision to include it on it website;
  • for those only interested in the practical ways to achieve awakening as the Buddha and others did the Abhidhamma is of little or no use.
1 Like

Have you studied Abhidhamma?
I have to disagree with both of your statement.

Guys, can we not get into this here? The point of the article was to give a straightforward factual survey of the field. I know how to set aside my own opinions when I want, it’s not that hard.

SC is not in the business of telling people how they can or can not get enlightened. We simply supply texts, and are trying to give a little context for that.

15 Likes

Thanks. That’s interesting, on a couple of accounts…

Perhaps relating to the notion of “[a specific nikāya of sutta-s]-reciters” that I’ve run across, e.g. Buddhaghosa referring to these or those “[a nikāya]-reciters” as having different interpretations from each other. Hence one origin of a “school” being perhaps having to do with which body of texts a group emphasizes, specializes in – maybe even namely those texts which they themselves have composed?

Also the term itself – as ni+kāya – relates to that oft argued issue as to what kāya
refers to in, say, the Anapanasati Sutta: a body of sensate phenomena or the (whole) “physical” body.

Raising a further question: how to take the sense of the prefix “ni-” in this term?

No, the uses are distinct and any Pali-knower wouldn’t get confused. Anyway, the usual terms for “reciter” don’t mention the word nikāya at all, but simply dīghabhānaka etc.

Words from root kāya are extremely prolific and varied. The prefix ni- doesn’t really have any literal meaning here, it is just an idiom.

3 Likes

Thanks.

Thanks for writing those Ab introductions Bhante, it definitely is very useful and helpful. I had long been desiring a brief summary of the different schools of Ab to get a quick survey of their chief differences and commonality.

Although I agree the Ab intro is probably not the place to dive into the problems and contradictions between EBT and Theravada Orthodoxy, I think somewhere on SC, easily seen and accessible, there should be at least some brief description and links to articles that at least address the contradictions on major doctrinal points.

Just as potent medicine bottles have child proof caps to prevent opening, and bottles containing poison has a graphic of skull and cross bones, potentially dangerous scripture on SC should have some kind of warning label, and a brief explanation of why that dangerous material is there.

As SC is right now, the inclusion of Ab, Jataka Tales and other non EBT portions of KN, gives the impression they’re not incompatible with the EBT. The intro to AB, also gives the impression for the uninitiated that Abhidhamma is a harmless interpretation of EBT from a later period with non-pernicious innovations.

I would like to submit for your consideration another Abhidharma work which is often overlooked.

This is the Tattvasiddhisastra (Chinese: 成實論; Japanese pronunciation: Jōjitsu-ron, previously reconstructed as the Sādhyasiddhiśāstra) authored by the Indian master Harivarman (250-350) and translated into Chinese in 411 by Kumārajīva.

Full translation here:

A study of the text focusing on mind is “Mind in Dispute: The Section on Mind in Harivarman’s Tattvasiddhi” by Qian Lin

A few quotes on this text to show its importance:

The TatSid is an Abhidharma treatise extant only in Kumārajīva’s Chinese translation and no record of this treatise or of its author Harivarman (訶梨跋摩) is found in any extant Indian source. According to the Chinese accounts, Harivarman is a Buddhist teacher ordained and trained in the Sarvāstivāda tradition, and probably in the lineage of teachers who are called “Dārṣṭāntikas.” He is well versed in teachings of different schools
of his time, but he is disappointed with the Abhidharma theories current in his day. He feels that those theories stray away from the original teachings of the Buddha. In order to persuade his contemporaries to return to the “original teaching,” and to promote what he considers the correct teaching of the Buddha, he wrote the TatSid.

Moreover, the various texts cited in the TatSid, especially sūtras quoted in its arguments, are sometimes interestingly different from the extant sūtra collections available to us today. These characteristics of the TatSid provide us the opportunity to study the development of Buddhist texts and Buddhist doctrines within a particular historical setting, and this is precisely the objective of the present study.

The author of the TatSid, Harivarman, is very knowledgeable about, and very critical of, the Abhidharma systems of his period, and records extensively in the TatSid both arguments and rejoinders from teachers with different opinions regarding the issues disputed. The texts quoted and mentioned in the TatSid include early sūtra materials as well as references to positions that can be traced in various Abhidharma treatises of different teachers and schools.
These records make the TatSid a rich source of early Buddhist textual materials, and hence make it a good candidate for textual and philological investigations.

4 Likes

Thanks, that’s an interesting text.

It’s quite extraordinary that a manuscript was taken from India to China, translated from (something like) Sanskrit to Chinese, then taken back in modern times from China to India, retranslated back into Sanskrit, then from Sanskrit to English, and now at the end of this long journey we can read it online!

6 Likes