Dear Mat,
fair enough so far I think. But to reach a state of certainty we would need to go further, would you agree?
Mettā
Dear A.Bhikkhu
I am certain that both V&V are lost in the transition from the first jhana to the second jhana. I can’t ‘prove’ this unless you are willing to accept me sticking my neck out in this fashion and going against the Theravada tradition being born and raised in Sri Lanka, is of any value to you.
It is not only that but there are only 4 material jhana. I am aware of this with certainty. Immaterial attainments arise afterwards. Not only for me but also for students I have trained in jhana the pattern is the same. You are not obliged to take my word of course.
This might be a good point to end the questions about this particular point?
With metta
Would you mind specifying? I would not take the five-fold abhidhamma classification of the Jhānas in nature so strong as to tip any balance … Or were you thinking of something else?
It might be as you stated, yes, but I think it unlikely having happened in this manner. In order to fortify their stand as to the favor of the king or the society there would have been no need to introduce new materials as canonical. Dharmasoka possessed knowledge of the Buddha’s teaching and would have had most likely not approved of such measures. This supposition you put forth would also imply an unfaithful leading saṅgha at the time of Asoka, assumption for which I see no validation at present – no corruptness I know of is reported of the ven. Moggaliputta Tissa or Mahinda or other prominent leaders or the ancient saṅgha in general. (A look into other tradition might be helpful.) A substantial portion of the leading saṅgha would have needed to be corrupt, the monks who were cast out, it was suggested or directly mentioned (I am not sure. I think it was in the commentary), that the fake monks which Asoka disrobed were actually members of other schools (Brahmins, when I remember correctly), which acted upon envy etc. and did not effect the core of the sangha, which suffered not little.
In fact actually everything seems to speak for authentic transmission – I would like to draw again attention to the fact of the foreign materials in the canons of other schools, which only entered the Theravāda commentaries, where a rather clear cut line was and is maintained. We find it also mentioned there (not sure if always though), if a text is later and when it omit such notes this might indicate the true status quo at that time. The very gloomy notion of this greedy ancient saṅgha, which just produced texts out of nothing claiming it to be canonical for personal gain is maybe rooted in the attitudes of Mrs. Rhys Davids or other scholars strongly rooted in a modern Western capitalistic society. Here paper has very strong negative bent:
I have said cenotaph, for least of all do I labour under any illusion that even the most finished European editions or translations – let alone or rough pioneer efforts – will quicken these dead bones [the abhidhamma] to any power of teaching and enlightening our world […]The Abhidhamma-Pitaka and Commentaries on JSTOR
Mettā
1 Like
Yes, sure, no problem – a suitable point, yes. Maybe later again after more research has been done, for me personally and in general perhaps also.
Mettā
I am new to the practice but absolutely enamored, and I after having caught up with the academics of it all, I am very excited to see what the internet savvy buddhist generation will do for the traditions. With the suttas so easily read now, a lot of doctrines and even meditative practices are being re-vamped, something I totally agree with. After studying the suttas for even just the past 6 months, it blows my mind that some of the theravadin views still stand or even that they worked their way into doctrine in the first place. Not to mention the views of other traditions as well. Honestly I think even the Tibetan Buddhists see this, as I’ve heard some of them say they think the claim that the Dalai Lama is the same rebirth as the last should be stopped altogether, as the Buddha clearly never intended for that. I hope that over the next few years we can maybe even build a brand new tradition that accounts for all these new changes and revelations, only because I don’t see those holding hard and fast to the old ones ever budging. Hey sujato, wanna start a new tradition for us? ;p
Don’t you want to end Samsara?
I think this belong here:
svabhāva
(Skt.). Intrinsic nature, self-being or own-being; a technical term found in early sources but used mainly in later Buddhism to denote the concept of an ātman or a permanent and unchanging identity or substratum. In contrast to some pre-Mahāyāna schools such as the Sarvāstivāda.all Mahāyāna schools reject the existence of any such intrinsic nature and maintain that all phenomena are devoid or empty (see śūnyatā) of any kind of svabhāva. According to the Abhidharma.the svabhāva was the unique and inalienable ‘mark’ or characteristic (lakṣaṇa or sva-lakṣana) by means of which entities could be differentiated and classified. By identifying the svabhāva of an entity a taxonomy of real existents could be produced. For example, the svabhāva of fire was identified as heat, and the svabhāva of water was defined as fluidity. Thus the schools of the Hīnayāna.while denying a self of persons (pudgala-nairātmya) nevertheless accepted the substantial reality of those elements (dharmas) which composed the world at large, including five skandhas of the individual subject. Beginning with Nāgārjuna, the Mādhyamaka undercut this teaching by denying the substantial reality not just of the self (ātman) but of all phenomena, a view known as dharma-nairātmya. All entities were therefore seen as alike in lacking a discrete mode of being or self-essence (svabhāva), and in sharing instead the common attribute or ‘mark’ of emptiness (śūnyatā).
with metta
What an awesome post.
The way that I settle (and come to a personal peace with) the whole Abhidhamma debate (which effectively could never end, see below), goes like this: you have to pretty much set aside logic and spirituality and look at sheer economics, sheer market forces. Or at least, you need to ask, “Who provides access to, or denies access to the 4 requisites in a given monastic community? Who controls the purse strings, even if through indirect means?”
If you are a monk from an Abhidhamma-based tradition, then of course you must necessarily be a proponent of the Abhidhamma (or at least you must remain silent on criticizing or casting any shadow of a doubt on it). Your survival within that tradition would depend on it. And those traditions would naturally only ever promote consummately pro-Abhidhamma monks into roles of authority and teaching, ensuring the pro-Abhidhamma party line continues on unbroken, Western scholars be damned (along with their pesky logic).
If, on the other hand, you are a monk from a tradition who has no hard party line about the Abhidhamma (as is the case in my own tradition), then and only then would you effectively be free enough to cast a possible shadow of a doubt on the Abhidhamma, and not potentially treaten one’s continued access to the 4 requisites (in some given monastic community.)
So the Abhidhamma will never go away. It’s too risky to challenge by a large number of monks who will understandably act out of self-preservation (which could be euphemistically called “harmony”, by Abhidhamma apologists). It’s as simple as that.
When I let go of the hope that there will ever be a wholesale resolution of the whole Abhidhamma debate, it is that very letting go of expectation which brings me inner equanimity on this issue. Otherwise it would probably drive me bat-poop crazy. 
1 Like
Satu! Satu! Bhante.
I have greatly appreciated the many responses to this topic. As my own understanding of the Abhidhamma develops little by little I take heart that my understanding of the Suttas will also deepen.
with metta
Trevor Robertson
3 Likes