The Buddha and the Abhidhamma

But they were not Arahants!

Could I visit the battleground once more somehow (through some particular references perhaps)? The situation seems after all somewhat not so decisively clear and settled to me though ā€“ but I remain openā€¦

Mettā

You could. But youā€™d be fighting a zombie horde. For every one you kill, two will take its place. They will never stop, and you will never win.

Meanwhile, I gave up this fight long ago. Now Iā€™m happy over here tending to a garden. Look, we have lovely fruits and flowers for all to share! Why not join us? :apple: :sunflower: :strawberry:

4 Likes

I would visit just to have a look of what happened, not to kill any people lying half-dead on the ground or even fighting zombies. Afterwards I would join for a cup of tea in your lovely garden, while discussing what happened on the battle field if you likeā€¦ No, no, I really try to avoid any heated partisanship although I have my bent also.

Mettā

4 Likes

Could you please explain the incompatibility.

For me a key criteria for not taking the Theravada Abhidhamma seriously is the fact that it is unique to the Theravadins while we found a lot of overlapping with the suttas of various traditions.

In fact I donā€™t like to see the Abhidhamma on Sutta Central which is supposed to be the repository of EBTs.

I feel dumb, but I donā€™t understand your simile at all :sweat_smile:ā€¦ what fight are you talking about?

Would you kind of agree with A.Bhikkhuā€™s line of thoughts or is it the oppositeā€¦?

Well, many years ago, I used to be a die-hard Theravadin. I studied Abhidhamma: in fact, Abhidhamma was my first introduction to Buddhism. I liked that it was hard and demanded that I use my brain; and I found many of the ideas fascinating.

As time went on, I encountered Abhidhamma sceptics, and for various reasons I felt I had to defend the Abhidhamma, and the Theravadin tradition in general. It seemed to me that even if not every detail was spoken by the Buddha, such a tried and true tradition was likely to have more things right than any modern attempt at reconstruction. One of the key areas that this was felt was in dependent origination, where it was clear that the traditional interpretation was far closer to what the suttas say, as compared to modern interpreters.

To a certain degree, this is still the case, and in many respects I think the traditional understanding still holds good. But it became more and more clear that there are key areas of the Dhamma, not just details, where the Abhidhamma/commentarial tradition is teaching something quite different to that found in the Suttas.

The most decisive issue here for me was the notion that the path in the ultimate sense is just one mind moment. This is not just central to the whole Theravadin theory of the path, but has substantially informed modern meditation techniques. And it is clearly not what the Buddha taught. I gathered a collection of passages on this in my first book.

Anyway, so I managed to let go my attachment to Theravada/abhidhamma orthodoxy, and had the courage to try to look at the suttas as they are. In addition, my growing awareness of the parallels made me understand how distinctly they represent a common shared heritage.

For a long time, for many years, I have discussed these issues, with scholars, lay practitioners, and of course my fellow monastics. Now I feel like that part of my life is over; Iā€™m just not interested any more. For me, the future lies in a deeper understanding of the suttas, deepening my own practice and sharing the Buddhaā€™s wisdom as best I can with others.

Of course, others are in different stages of their journeys, and will follow different paths, and Iā€™m fine with that. If you like Abhidhamma, go for it!

But I just find it a bit sad that itā€™s so common in Theravada to not accept the basic facts of our field. Letā€™s get over it and move on. The Abhidhamma represents the work of Buddhist scholars to assemble and organize the teachings. Take it for what it is, and there is much to be learned. It doesnā€™t help anyone to insist that itā€™s something it is not. Letā€™s not waste our time litigating arguments that were settled long ago.

19 Likes

I understand, and you are not alone in this. Many years ago we made the decision to support the entire Tipitaka, not just Sutta and Vinaya, even though thatā€™s obviously what weā€™re interested in. Anyway, thatā€™s how the texts were preserved in the tradition, so we keep it as is out of respect.

8 Likes

Thank you very much for the clarifications of your simile! And for sharing your thoughts. :anjal:

1 Like

Bhante, is there somewhere that has a rundown of the key differences between sutta dhamma and abhidhamma dhamma?

Given my training as a philosopher I am of course interested in the systematicity and conciseness of the abhidhamma presentation. Having a guidebook for where and how it differs from what came before would therefore be of great benefit. (Keeping in mind of course that those who developed the abhidhamma intended it to be, and believed it to be, only a distillation of suttanta).

:anjal:

Not that Iā€™m aware of.

Something you might be persuaded to undertake? :upside_down_face:

1 Like

Keep dreaming.

My understanding of the ā€œpath momentā€ is that it is the moment one crosses a particular Stage of Awakening. So in the ā€œlifeā€ (could be over several lives) of a practitioner there will be four ā€œpathā€ moments to reach Arahatship.
Also there will be four ā€œfruitā€ moments corresponding to when the practitioner realises that he/she got the fruit associated with each particular Stage.

My understanding of the path moment is that it doesnā€™t exist. It is a concept invented by scholars to provide conceptual clarity, and has no correspondence with real world spiritual practice. But hey, just my opinion!

4 Likes

Dreams come true!

1 Like

This is my opinion too.
I do not believe that the insight arises like climbing a step. (it is gradual, even though there is sudden change)
To me, insight rises like settling a jug of muddy water.
For instance deciding to become a monk is a sudden change of gradual change. In the same way a person will disrobe too.

Bhante,
personally I remain open to that possibility, would not exclude that it is as you said it is. But of everything I read so far no argument could decisively settle the case, at least regarding my points mentioned above.

I think if we acknowledge different stages and different paths, which is essential I believe, we must remain also open to the possibility that the approach of others in harmonization all parts of the Tipitaka might be valid and according to original Buddhism. As I mentioned, there are no small minds within the Theravāda, which follow that different path and which have put surely often equally an effort in scrutinizing, but just arrived at different results, for intricate reasons yet to understand (personal bent and temperament, ability to remain open, perhaps different range and kind of knowledge etc.).

I respect of course your wish to spend your future energy on different tasks than discussing this issue and leave it accordingly. But I hope to be allowed to ask further, if I may be allowed, for just some references. You mentioned your book ā€¦ I am aware of your essay ā€œThe Mystique of the Abhidhammaā€. Any other works which reflect your point of view best? Thank you!

Mettā

http://santifm.org/santipada/2010/the-mystique-of-the-abhidhamma/

Do we have a discussion thread on this?

1 Like