Dear Alaber,
yes, the difference is there, but attempts have been made to work out common ground between the various materials – there is less than in the sutta material, but core elements can be found. (See: Cousin, Lance: Abhidhamma Studies III – The Origins of the Canonical Abhidha(r )mma Literature. Artikel und Aufsätze/Articles and Essays - embracing-buddhisms Webseite!)
I believe we must also investigate into the causes of this disparateness. One cause might the one I suggested under point six in my above reply:
The other early Buddhist schools may have rejected the Theravāda a-p because of the intrinsic affinity to the ven. Sāriputta. Perhaps not too dissimilar to a modern Thai movement within the Theravāda (Buddhawajana movement of Wat Nah Pah Pong – not to be confused with the one of Luang Por Chah “Wat Nong Pah Pong”), which seems to be merely focusing on what just and only the Buddha said, and not laying significant emphasis on the words of his disciples, even printing new edition of the root texts omitting, to my knowledge and remembrance, the disciple’s sayings (probably it would then be just an eka-pitaka or half a pitaka or so).
This mentioned affinity to the ven. Sāriputta might have also given rise to a more liberal handling in these transmitted abhidhamma materials among other schools. Even shortly after the Buddha’s death, after the first council was held – I think it was after(?) – there was a monk who refused to accept these communally determined and collected teachings (or at least doubt them) but to stick to what he had heard from the Blessed One personally. Similar tendencies might have been at work within one or the other early Buddhist school in regards to the a-p. Again I would like to mention the largely scholarly accepted fidelity of the Theravāda tradition, which bents my mind rather to their material than to those of other schools, although they certainly contain much valuables. But these are just considerations …
Please let me know about your opinion, if you don’t mind. I for one think my six points above relate to one or the other point in the essay and might actually suffice for further discussion, but let’s see if there is interest and so maybe replies accordingly … But please go ahead if you feel the need, if you wish to clarify any further points, additional or otherwise.
under books, there’s Dawn of Abhidhamma, as a free pdf
For myself, I spent at least 80 hours carefully surveying Theravada Abhidhamma literature, to get a general idea what it is, how long it would take to learn it, and assess whether it was worth my time to invest in. I also spent many years living closely among devoted orthodox Theravdin Abhidhamma meditators practicing samatha and vipassana according to Vism.
I came to the conclusion Abhdihamma wasn’t for me. The three main reasons:
I couldn’t see what it brought to the table, i.e. what benefit it added over the EBT. It just seemed like it would take an enormous investment of energy and time to learn about peripheral things not directly connected to the ultimate goal, or if it was ostensibly supposed to be connected directly to realizing nirvana, I doubted its efficacy. Here’s what I mean by simile. There’s only so many volumes of printed text you can say about how to swim before it becomes unnecessary and just a waste of time pontificating on the subject. You have to get in the water and sink or swim. You practice and either you can do it or you can’t do it. Words don’t help beyond a certain point.
I didn’t like what I was seeing among my fellow practitioners and teachers who were practicing and believers of abhidhamma, i.e. how Abhidhamma affected their practice and conduct. Don’t get me wrong, I love my fellow practitioners and teachers, and can talk enthusiastically at great length about the many excellent qualities they possess due to their spiritual practice, but I don’t think abhidhamma was responsible for the positive qualities, and some of the negative qualities that I find off putting I attribute to their staunch belief in abhidhamma.
I can’t see how the Buddha would transmit or encourage the oral transmission of Abhidhamma pitaka. To even study a primer of the Abhidhamma that summarizes the 7 books, you have to study primers for the primer, and its still confusing and difficult to understand. There’s a common human bias that if something is difficult to understand, abstruse, and it’s coming from a trusted elder person who is generally regarded has highly intelligent and wise, then it must be just very profound and I’m too dumb to understand it. That may be the case sometimes, but sometimes the elder is wise and intelligence but has some blind spots.
I just can’t see a living body of abhidhamma reciters memorizing, reciting, and trying to teach each other abhidhamma in its entirety, or even partially, transmitting from generation to generation.
Those are 3 of my big picture reasons. There are also tons of little but very important reasons as well, that I don’t want to get into just in the interest of time.
What Abhidhamma brought to the table is to tabulate the sutta in a different way. This is no different to Bhikkhu Bodhi’s “In the Buddha’s Word”. Abhidhamma is another type of tabulation like the Sutta.
Link to the BB summary: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/in … ic_id=6185
Yes I spent countless hours studying Abhidhamma but it paid off for me. Abhidhamma is not greater than the Sutta. Abhidhamm also has the same draw back as the Suttas. I agree with you that there is no substitute for practice.
There are more misbehaved monks following sutta than the misbehaved monks following Abhidhamma. I am sure any monk who got enough patient and discipline to study Abhidhamma will ever misbehaved.
I agree however if you read Abhidhamma before some understanding of Sutta, it will be a recipe for disaster.
3)Well, Abhidhamma survive as almost the length of the survival of Sutta. There are different type of Dhamma followers. Abhidhamma is for the intellectuals.
a quick request of some advice. I’ve never really cared much for Abhidhamma, I’ve read through some of it long ago but frankly the intellectualizing in it turned me off, to me the simple and straight forward teachings of the Buddha in the suttas called to my own experience(as opposed to 108 of this, and 40 of these, and 67 of those), and frankly I never looked back.
As a monastic now I do question whether I should at least have some background in Abhidhamma before dismissing it as I usually do. Bhante do you think it’s worth it or proper for me to read and study the Abhidhamma just to have the knowledge of it? as a “proper” “monkly” thing, or should I just continue my study of the Nikayas and using them as a framework for my practice.
My preceptor, Bhante Gunaratana, does not teach from commentaries or Abhidhamma as a general rule, Bhavana Society is very Nikaya/EBT based, which is why I’ve always loved it, but he does know them quite well and occasionally if he is struggling to answer a question he will come out with an answer that I know is from either one of those because I’ve never seen the answer in the suttas(and I often look up the answer afterwards).
In general I’m not a very scholarly intellectual type person, as can be seen quite easily by my lack of engagement in many topics here, I never plan to be a very scholarly monk, but I do want to eventually be able to read the suttas in Pali. There is part of me that really feels like I should at least read through Abhidhamma and commentaries before canning them.
I wouldn’t worry about it. If you are interested in Abhidhamma, and already have a grounding in the suttas, fine. But the point of Abhidhamma, really, is to aid in understanding the suttas. In many ways, the positive functions of that have been superseded.
For example, one thing the Abhidhamma does is it lists synonyms for technical terms. Of course this is very useful, helping to make connections between different texts. But these days we have dictionaries and text search and so on, which performs much the same function. And indeed, much of the critical reference apparatus we rely on is rooted in the Abhidhamma and commentaries.
This is why, even within the tradition, the canonical Abhidhamma is mostly ignored, and what Abhidhamma students usually use is modern textbooks based on medieval treatises and their commentaries.
The main purpose, I think, of studying the Abhidhamma tradition is that we can learn how the different generations of Buddhists approached the learning of Dhamma, adapting it and transforming it according to circumstance. Through this lens it can be valuable.
Thank you Bhante.
I think a person should read four Nikayas at least once before they attempt to read Abhidhamma.
I still did not have a chance to read Sutta Abhidhamma.
Ven. Anālayo has a short book and some articles on Abhidhamma that I read and recommend.
Thank you frank for your careful and honest reply and the references.
I personally think, that is fine and even within the scope of tradition. When I remember correctly, we find in the commentarial tradition, that the world will not be empty of Arahants even at a time where merely the Vinaya-Pitaka exists (or certain parts of it) – in a time of degeneration – and where the rest of the tipitaka will have been lost, seemingly then tacitly expressing that the abhidhamma is not absolutely essential in attaining any magga-phala. But I haven’t read it in any source text. A passage from the Vinaya-Pitaka indicates an early delineation as to the inclination to certain fields of learning:
“Look here, do you master suttantas, or verses (gatha), or what is extra to dhamma [abhidhamma] and afterwards you will master discipline”
Horner suggests that the value
of the gathas lay in ‘their appeal to the more emotional type of disciple…
whereas the mastery of abhidhamma would provide a field to attract the more intellectual type, while mastery of suttantas would stir the normally virtuous man of average mental equipment.’
In one or the other sutta we find, as you most likely know, teachings about the principles of association and that these principles ensue a gathering with like-minded folk. So we see the intellectual or particularly wisdom inclined bhikkhus as being drawn into the presence of the ven. Sāriputta, flocking around him. If I am allowed to conjecture, I suppose it might be that you are just of another type and might have been gathered around the ven. Ānanda, if you had been a disciple in those days close to him, or another disciple.
One description of wisdom is the understanding of bright and dark phenomena, as well as of these of mixed nature. Having mastered these abhidhamma teachings one will, I believe, have a very solid and comprehensive understanding of these mentioned differently or equally poled phenomena. I agree that for the most direct liberation you can dispense with all these details, but nevertheless they are of value in attaining a different kind of depth in understanding and reasoning and the range to expound and understand the teachings of the Buddha. The way for example to the paṭisambhidā, the four discriminative knowledges, is a different one than just attaining to vipassanā to directly induce liberation. That is where I would personally see the value, among other things.
Actually I can really relate to that. I saw once a video of an abhidhamma lecture held by a Myanmar teacher and it was dry as it could be, really. Sorry if that sounds disrespectful but that is how I perceived it. I felt no pathos at all, seemingly just monotone repetition. Nevertheless I sometimes felt quite similar while hearing sutta-based teachers, just repetition, mere book knowledge without any deeper deliberations. Also no disrespect to them – it is difficult to give dhamma-talks anyway and so the mentioned impression I got must not necessarily reflect there state of understanding. My point is that you find bad, or personally unappealing teachers on both sides. I find, for example, the ven. Pa Auk Sayadaw in person emotionally very grounded and I had the impression of him as a very knowledgable (I heard he made six rounds to the entire tipitaka(!)) and kind teacher, who is nevertheless a strong advocate of abhidhamma teachings.
I agree with most of what you wrote. As to with what I do not agree: We find occasional prodigies, who are able to grasp such a body of knowledge – I would like to refer here to the example of the ven. Ānanada in the case of the suttas, who is reputed to have had such a remarkable memory, that he was able to grasp the suttas in their entirety. Even at present, I have heard, there are a handful or so of bhikkhus who have a similar grasp of the whole tipitaka. Also it might be possible that in keeping and transmission of the materials there was a sharing in efforts, as it happened also with the suttas, where different chief disciples with their respective bodies of pupils were entrusted to take care of an individual nikāya – ven. Mahā Kassapa and his students for the Sa.myutta Nikāya etc.
Yes, in the suttas we can find also this kind of style, though mostly embedded in some “entertainment”, such as narrative with details of the protagonists etc. Reading the Dīgha Nikāya felt at times like reading a novel (a good and wholesome one for sure), although we find abhidhamma style there.
What I’m specifically referring to is the blind belief that:
the Jataka Tales, Theravada Abhidhamma, are the word of the Buddha,
are 100% true, and
that the Jataka Tales, Abhidhamma, and other questionable parts of the Sutta pitaka do not contradict the EBT portion of the suttas at all.
This is especially so among the followers, but as far as I can tell even the teachers, masters, who the devotees consider Ariya, all the way to the top of the hierarchy. Although I’m generally fearless when it comes to directly asking questions I consider of great importance to all the teachers, in this case I found it too awkward to directly ask them, “Do you really hold those 3 positions as true?” Because I knew there are only 4 possible answers and the first 3 are really bad.
The possible outcomes:
They lack discernment, basic reasoning skills, and logic to see that Abhdhamma contradicts EBT on important doctrinal points.
They know the contradictions are there, they know the jataka tales are fiction, but they see that fiction and lies serve a useful practical purpose in keeping the theravada orthodox tradition alive, so they publicly claim everything is true and 100% word of the Buddha, while privately they know the truth but believe they are doing this for the greater good.
They know the contradictions are there, but they want to preserve harmony in the Sangha and they’re quite afraid of the kamma of causing a schism so they mostly stay quiet on the matter and don’t voice their doubts to the teachers or others.
They’re unsure, so won’t really state a clear position on the 3 points, but have faith in their teachers and hope they will understand over time.
I don’t have psychic powers, but I would guess most of the teachers are in category 1. Probably some of the teachers privately have some doubts about some issues, but not enough doubt to shake their dogmatic devotion to the overall orthodox party line that everything in the Te Tipitaka is the genuine 100% word of the Buddha.
If I remember correctly from reading his autobiography, Bhante Gunaratana had a photographic memory as a kid. Ordained as a samanera at age 12, took full ordination at 20, very well versed in Abhidhamma and entire Tipitaka. You can be sure someone from Sri Lanka, immersed and ordained in orthodox theravada tradition, with a photographic memory and sharp intellect has an interesting and worthwhile perspective on this issue.
In this thread, I posted some excerpts showing how his interpretation of jhana changed over 30 years, from an orthodox position to one that is completely consistent to the EBT
I’m all for a diverse Buddhist ecosystem to suit personalities and dispositions of all types, so long as it’s stated clearly that it’s a commentary, or not the direct word of the Buddha. The Abhdhamma that evolved in the Mahayana is quite a different Abhidhamma than Te, and is also classified officially as commentary, not word of the Buddha.
I believe in the early days of Te Abhidhamma, they were honest and ethical on keeping things separate. The fact that it has its own pitaka for example. But somewhere along the line they crossed the line, and never looked back.
Might be true, yes, although I personally had the experience that there are more discerning people under category 3, when it comes to contradictions of any kind. The respect for the teacher is immense in traditional countries and even things are upheld, which even everybody knows is actually a straight contradiction.
That it is a mere commentary or otherwise would have to be established more definitely, as I see it – the state of affairs is not easily discerned. One reason for this is, that I often see a certain point explained as at variance with suttanta just to see it harmonized by somebody who is in favor for the a-p – these people with their points need to be studied as thoroughly as views which are skeptical in nature, I believe. If we argue that there are contradictions we need further clarify that it is the abhidhamma which has to mend its ways and not the source we treat as genuine. Also the causes for a potentially really existing contradiction need to be taken into account.
Where is the contradiction to be located, within the commentaries or in the root text?
Is it perhaps due to a corrupted reading?
We find all kinds of strange and foreign elements within the Mahayāna traditions, which is generally another thing in the Theravāda. Buddhaghosa mentioned also a possible classification of the abhidhamma within the Khuddaka-Nikāya, if I remember correctly, did therefore seemingly not treat it as a mere commentary, but drew rather from ancient commentarial material himself in his exegetical compositions (our present commentaries) on the a-p. But if the status quo is due to your research or other reasons settled for you more clearly that we have to accept also … I for one am still inclined to a more favorable assessment of the abhidhamma, but find further investigation warranted.
I’m not an expert in abhidhamma but in my reading of the Manual of abhidhamma by Ven Narada, a few things stand out:
Rupa jhana according to the abhidhamma First material (Rupa) jhana contains vitakka, vicara, Piti, sukha, ekaggata Second material (Rupa) jhana contains, vicara, Piti, sukha, ekaggata Third material (Rupa) jhana contains Piti, sukha, ekaggata Fourth material (Rupa) jhana containssukha, ekaggata Fifth material (Rupa) jhana contains ekaggata.
The problem with this schedule is that it is derived analytically i.e. the reduction of jhana factors does not happen this way in real life. Vitakka and vicara are both lost when moving from the first jhana to the second jhana according to EBTs. The unnecessary scholarly analysis has resulted in 5 material (Rupa) jhanas, when there are only 4. According to EBTs and from anyone who has attained to the complete set of Rupa jhana, it is known that there exists only 4 Rupa jhana.
There isn’t much practical implication in this, except that the monk(s) who created the abhidhamma felt their standing, scholarship and rivalry with other schools was more important than being faithful to the Buddha’s word- which would have been easily accessible to them. They had to create new teachings beyond the word of the Buddha, to stand out. This puts the intension behind and accuracy of the abhidhamma on a precarious footing.
Either vitakka and vicara are both lost or only one is lost. One cannot say technically only one is lost and practically and on EBTs both are lost. That’s illogical.
