as often seems the case, I am coming late to this discussion, but, nonetheless offer these few comments as Abhidhamma is a source of interest and study for me. I think you’re right to advance a set of essays for SC, Bhante, and offer thes reflections in support. When I first took the trouble to join a Buddhist group (1968/69 in a still fledgling Buddhist Society of Victoria) a brief mention of Abhidhamma was made by the then president who made what was probably a fairly widespread reference to it as the “further” doctrine. In an earlier reply about Abhidhamma in SC I quoted the more recent and hopefully more widely accepted translation/interpretation of the prefix abhi as discussion “about” Dhamma. Hopefully, we have come that far, at least.
To the question about its usefulness to ourselves as westerners “becoming” Buddhists (and I much prefer that word to “convert” which too often implies some form of wrenching rejection of one system for another) I think it is important that serious adherents/followers, once that process of becoming has been settled - like a quiet confidence that the path is right- supplement and reinforce their understanding of the sutta material with a slow and steady understanding of the Abhidhamma for, as I think you’ve said, the Abhidhamma is a system of analysis of that very material. What is needed, however, at least for lay practitioners like me, is the sound guidance of a teacher and it is not every member of the Sangha who can offer that guidance. For that reason alone I think the inclusion in SC of your essays is a good start in what can only be a long process.
Hello Venerable,
I wonder where Venerable got that information about that so-called Burmese folk tradition. Since childhood, most Burmese buddhists have been quite familiar with the “folk tradition” of Mahamaya being a male deva named Santussita. We usually call him Mother-Deva (or) literally mother-male-god. It is likely that those who are not familiar enough with Burmese language may take the term to be a feminine.
This is Burmese term: “မယ်တော်မိနတ်သား”
Where:
မယ်တော် = Mother - used as a Royal term (also used for mothers of monks & nuns).
မိ = mother (မိခင်) / မိ may also refer to a female
နတ်သား = male deva
Together: Mother-male-deva (a masculine noun)
(However, Google translate would give a non-sense phrase, as usual.)
That very word “မယ်တော်မိနတ်သား” is used in Myanmar wikipedia about abhidhamma “အဘိဓမ္မာ”.
So, we Burmese buddhists are quite sure in that if there must be a heaven dweller named Santussita - the late mother of our Buddha, then he must be a male.
“The mother of his mother-in-law,” “maaltaw mi naat sarr,” it seems you have a gift for prophecies.
From a footnote in The Expositor, Pe Maung Tin’s translation of the Atthasālinī.
Thanks a lot, Venerable.
Interesting point is my phrase “Burmese Buddhists” cannot be applied for him because he was a “Burmese Christian” 
However, my another phrase “those who are not familiar enough with Burmese language” needs to be turned upside down 
because he was the first professor in Myanmar Language at Rangoon University, Burma and a pali scholar. But, I dare say his dexterity and naturalness in using Burmese language regarding Buddhist teachings were most likely not comparable in many ways to born and bred buddhist scholar like Ledi Sayadaw.
My conspiracy theory 
as of now is related to:
- being brought up as Christian/ relatively distant from Buddha’s stories as a child/ not got some " early exposure" to Monastatic education
- his formal main pali training came in Colcutta university, India; Not from Burmese monks
- possibility of familarity to Buddhist teachings being his late acquired passion
That said, may be I can later come up with some info on where this strange point emerged.
Edited # 1 (some points added)
Another, slightly related finding is that the atthasalini he translated was edited and revised by Mrs. Rhys Davids, who was nicknamed by Burmese of those days as London-pali-devi (princess), related to her correspondence and consulting with Ledi Sayadaw.
An Interesting thing is Both the translator and editor were not Buddhists. And, Mrs. Davids is extremely likely to be a Soul-er based on her “accusations” amounting to something like 'the monks don’t really know about anatta that they have always been preaching; they don’t know about soul" or with similar meaning.
And, my somewhat biased & exaggerated conclusion would be “she didn’t know what she had edited about”, and I wouldn’t be suprised now if I were to find some idea of soul emanated from that Buddhaghosa’s abhidhamma book in English, let alone female Santussita.
usual burmese meaning for me ||| google translate | ||my impression
- |-|-|-|-|-|-|-
မယ်တော် = mother (royal)| ||mother||| great
မိ = mother||| mom||| here, way better in capturing nuances of meaning than my translation as mother
နတ်သား= (deva) male-deva||| son of
the devil|||oops!
You won’t find it, for virtually all of Mrs Rhys Davids’ Abhidhamma-related scholarship predates the lapse into aberrant thinking that you describe here.
In 1917 her son was killed fighting in France. The ensuing grief led her to dabble in spiritualism, theosophy and perennialist mysticism, which in turn led to her championing a Vedanta-like interpretation of anattā and positing of a monkish conspiracy to cover up the Buddha’s true message. Her earlier work, however, is not tainted at all by these notions and is about as sound as pioneering scholarship can possibly be.
After I sent my last post I remembered that Mingun Sayadaw also mentions “scholars” (though he doesn’t say whether they be Western or Burmese) who understand Santussita to be female. He himself of course rejects the idea.
From his Great Chronicle of the Buddhas:
Was Royal Mother Māyā reborn as a Male or a Female Celestial Being?
To the question as to whether the royal mother, Māyā, was reborn as a male or a female celestial being in the abode of Tusitā, the answer, no doubt, should be that she was reborn as a male.
In this matter, after superficially studying the Pāli statement mātaraṃ pamukhaṃ katvā some scholars say or write that she was reborn as a female deity; but such reliable works as the Theragāthā Commentary and others hold that “Māyā was only a male deity in Tusitā world of gods.” Concerning Thera Kāḷudāyī’s verses in the Dasaka Nipāta of the Theragāthā Commentary, Vol. II, it is said: dev’ūpapatti pana purisabhāven’eva jātā — “(Māyā’s) rebirth in the abode of gods took place only in the form of a male.”
Also in the section on the Bodhisatta’s auspicious birth, the Jinālaṅkāra Tīkā mentioned:
Yasmā ca Bodhisattena vasitakucchi nāma cetiyagabbhasadisā hoti, na sakkā aññena sattena āvasituṃ vā paribhuñjituṃ vā. Tasmā Bodhisattamātā gabhhavuṭṭhāṇato sattame divase kālaṃ katvā Tusitapure devaputto hutvā nibbatti —
“The womb in which the Bodhisatta had stayed was like the chamber of a cetiya: other beings did not deserve to stay there or to use it. Therefore, seven days after giving birth, the Bodhisatta’s mother died and became ‘son of a god’ in the celestial city of Tusitā.”
Still in the exposition on the Vīsatigathā of the Manidīpa Tīkā, Vol. I, it is asserted:
Sirī Mahāmāyā hi Bodhisattaṃ vijayitvā sattāhamattaṃ ṭhatvā ito cavitvā Tusitabhavane purisabhāven’eva nibbattā, na itthibhāvenā ti —
“Having lived only for seven days after giving birth to the Bodhisatta, Sirī Mahāmāyā passed away from this world and was reborn only as a man (male deity), not as a woman (female deity). It is a regular incident that all the mothers of Bodhisattas should live only seven days after childbirth and that they should all die and reborn in Tusitā Deva abode only as a god and never as a goddess.”
Therefore, the fact that Mahāmāyā was born only as a male deity (deva) in Tusitā should be accepted without doubt.
Thanks you so much, Venerable.
I feel so sad to hear about her tragic experience, but quite happy to learn reassuring perspectives about her works.
Edited # (added)
On the contrary:
I think, I found an [review] article, which is 14 years earlier than the demise of her son. The language use is quite difficult for me to read through fast, but I can easily sense that she was already in favor of the “I”, even though the article was much earlier than her explicit turn into “spiritualism”. So, I’m in favor of turning back into my “instinct” that many of her writings were made while her mind was in favor of the “I” or “soul” or “non-anatta”.
http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ENG/rhy.htm
The Soul-Theory in Buddhism
By C.A.F. Rhys Davids
The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland
some excerpt:
This notion, he holds, gives us a continuous `I,’ yet susceptible of interruptions. And hereby the extremes of negation and affirmation in the early tradition are bridged over; and we get a coherent system, vindicating for Buddhism the claim of its founders to teach a Mean Doctrine (majjhena dhammam) between the Eternalism of sabbam atthi and the Nihilism of sabbam natthi.(1) He concludes that sincein place of Soul the Buddhists substituted a protagonist who played the part of soul so uncommonly well, we must put into the background all their reiterated rejection of the Atta. Now I venture to think that in breaking up the notion of an abstract vijnana - entity into a series of intellectual processes or force-moments, Professor Poussin shows true insight into Buddhist thought Dimly and crudely without scientific language or instrument, the early Buddhists were groping, under the crust of words, after that view of phenomena which we are tending to make fundamental in our science of to-day.
Regarding Abhidhamma in the same article:
In the Abhidhamma, e.g. the Dhamma-Sangani, there appears already a tendency to substitute the plural vinnanani for the term groups of vinnana (cha vinnanakaya) of the Sutta Pitaka. But if the early Buddhists did not find fitting terms for the view they were seeking to realize so ready to hand as Aristotle did, it should be remembered that they had not a body of scientific tradition and terminology, however imperfect, to draw upon as he had.
And, this is about her influence on Horner regarding anatta-rejection, and both served as presidents of the PTS.
Although earlier in her career she accepted more mainstream beliefs about Buddhist teachings, later in life she rejected the concept of anatta as an “original” Buddhist teaching. She appears to have influenced several of her students in this direction, including A. K. Coomaraswamy, F. L. Woodward, and I. B. Horner.
It would also be good to know which works of I.B.Horner, who, as mentioned above, had also been president of the Pali Text Society, were influenced by Mrs. Rhys Davids’ later anatta-rejecting concepts.
Then I think you are confusing RD’s own views with those of Poussin, the Belgian scholar on whose work she is commenting. As it’s a densely argued piece, if you read it fast it’s highly likely that you’ll get it all wrong.
Can you clarify what is the significance, in terms of Dhamma? Please, and thank you, Venerables.
Thanks, Venerable.
My apology, if I haven’t made the post clear enough.
I am not talking about the original work or view of the scholar she was commenting. I am referring to the style of her commenting on that work which is clearly in favour of the view pertaining to the work. In other words, she was promoting that very view, and my impression is she was not neutral in commenting, and that is the very tendency which may likely color her choosing of the articles for commenting, as well as her translations and editings, when considering together with the point in her wikipedia stating:
Her translations of Pāli texts were at times idiosyncratic, but her contribution as editor, translator, and interpreter of Buddhist texts was considerable. She was one of the first scholars to translate Abhidhamma texts, known for their complexity and difficult use of technical language. She also translated large portions of the Sutta Piṭaka, or edited and supervised the translations of other PTS scholars. Beyond this, she also wrote numerous articles and popular books on Buddhism; it is in these manuals and journal articles where her controversial volte-face towards several key points of Theravāda doctrine can first be seen.
Thanks to both of you for these comments on Mrs RD, I’ve learned something of her history; and also about Pe Maung Tin, I didn’t realize he was a Christian!
Yes, Venerable.
As far as I have known, his christianity leads invariably and mainly to pleasantly surprised heightened appreciations by Buddhist & non-Buddhists alike in Myanmar.
In fact, I can’t remember myself having read a single negative impression when referring to him in Myanmar literature. Only praisings; many of which were positively colored by “even tho’ being a Christian”. And, for me personally, also only praisings, until knowing, thanks to Venerable D., that “devi Santussita” was related to his translation, [and the editor responsible, Mrs. Rhys Dadvids.]
My initial focus here is on “devi Santussita” and it’s non-relatedness to Burmese folk tradition.
I’ve written:
Why I’m so sure?
I have, in my mind, a scenario like:
…Between an average Buddhist child in 20th century Burma and a grandmom: …
Child: “Granny, Granny, why this awesome lightning festival?”
Grandmom: ”It’s like this, my dear… Once upon a time, Santussitā, the male deva, our lord Buddha’s late mother …"
And, U Pe Maung Tin had not ever been an average Buddhist child. That point, in combination with Calcutta knowledge of pali, and having Mrs. R. Davids as the editor, might have ended up in “devi Santussitā”.
I don’t think that “devi” thing successfully makes me feel less respectful and less grateful to this great man. However, a few of my perspectives have changed, and I’m glad about that.
I suspect there are rather few Buddhists for whom Santussita’s sex would be a significant issue.
Principally, I suppose, they would comprise those whose preferred path to enlightenment is via the Buddha’s Mother Vehicle (buddhamātuyāna). This seldom-discussed path consists in the development of the ten perfections for a hundred thousand kalpas with the aspiration of becoming the mother of a future Bodhisatta in his final life and later attaining arahantship after being taught Abhidhamma by him as a deva/devī in the Tāvatiṃsa heaven.
In that case I think you’ve completely misunderstood both Poussin and RD.
In brief:
Both scholars agree that the anattā doctrine was understood by Indian ābhidhammikas as amounting to a rejection of any sort of soul concept.
Pousssin’s view, however, is that (1) since the cittas that make up the cittasantāna posited by ābhidhammikas perform all the functions that in outside systems would be attributed to the soul, and (2) since each cittasantāna is eternally discrete and separate from all other cittasantānas, this supposed rejection of the soul concept is not really as substantial or thorough-going as ābhidhammikas supposed it to be.
Mrs Rhys Davids is disagreeing with Poussin on this point and arguing for the rejection being more than just a nominal one.
Thank a lot, Venerable, for the explanations.
It’s some good news about Mrs Rhys.
Bhante, are these two scholars, Davids and Poussin, talking about different Abhidharmas to boot, adding to the confusion?
In this case it doesn’t much matter since they are talking about an idea that appears to have been shared by all Abhidharma systems. Usually one would expect Poussin to focus on Sarvāstivāda, Sautrāntika and Yogācāra sources, but the article discussed by RD is based almost wholly on Pali ones.
Louis de La Vallée-Poussin: Dogmatique bouddhique – la négation de l’âme et la doctrine de l’acte
Interesting, thanks.
Regarding “talking about different Abhidharmas”: . . .
This may be related to that the possibility of her being foreshadowed (1903) in understanding of pali words by her husband’s [married 1894] Pali-English Dictionary of the Pali Text Society appeared 20 years or so later. Or, may be not.
There could be those who defend such use of Sanskrit roots to explain the pali words in a pali dictionary, and also there could be those who criticize this.
And, here is the one who supported this approach, imo.
From: (DOC) Why Did the Pali-English Dictionary of the Pali Text Society Use Sanskrit Roots to Derive the Meaning of Pali words | D.C. Wijeratna - Academia.edu
Why Did the Pali-English Dictionary of the Pali Text Society Use Sanskrit Roots to Derive the Meaning of Pali words
The foreword by Thomas Rhys Davids himself says (about the ‘strange method’):
We have given throughout the Sanskrit roots corresponding to the Pali roots, and have omitted the latter. It may be objected that this is a strange method to use in a Pali dictionary, especially as the vernacular on which Pali is based had never passed through the stage of Sanskrit. That may be so; and it may not be possible historically, that any Pali word in the canon could have been actually derived from the corresponding Sanskrit word. Nevertheless the Sanskrit form though arisen quite independently, may throw light upon the Pali form; and as Pali roots have not yet been adequately studied in Europe, the plan adopted will probably, at least for the present, be more useful.
…
…
This work is essentially preliminary.
Anyway, the author of dictionary commented himself about “the strange method” as “that may be so”, and I would add “that may also be alien, as well” to the pali universe.
And, it may not be very wrong to say that she might’ve used the Sanskrit-only derived ideas in translating Pali Abhidhammas, speaking of
talking about different Abhidharmas to boot.
Once again, I am coming late to this discussion and have been absent from contributions for some time. Life does get in the way of these interests at times.
I enjoy discussion around the Tipitaka, especially reading the varied opinions and approaches to the Abhidhamma.
I am glad to return to these discussions and to contribute where I think my thoughts might add something of worth to the discussion.
The suttacentral forum is also a great aid to connection between Buddhists.