Theorists vs. Practitioners - who is better?

[SeriousFun136]

@sarana

number of fully enlightened monks in the history of Theravada Buddhism

How do you know that they were fully-enlightened?
Did you directly understand their minds with your own mind?

@sarana

studied Abhidhamma, meditated, and then taught Abhidhamma as particularly deep and excellent in the exposition of the reality as it is.

I am still not seeing how this is valid reasoning for why Abhidhamma should be considered “original scripture” that was taught by the Buddha. The reasoning seems specious.

@sarana

One such example and “evidence” if you like is Ledi Sayadaw.

This doesn’t seem to be evidence that the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma.
Can you explain why you think this is an “example” or “evidence” for why the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma? How is “Ledi Sayadaw” considered “evidence” for the relationship between “Buddha” and “Abhidhamma”?

@sarana

found out that the great boom of meditation retreats and centers can be quite easily traced to Ledi Sayadaw and His influential writings.

You drew a connection between “Ledi Sayadaw and His influential writings” and “the great boom of meditation retreats and centers.”
I can see how that may be the case. But I was not asking about this.

I was asking about how is “Buddha” related to “Abhidhamma”?

@sarana

I became a monk to become free from all greed, hatred, and delusion.

May you be happy, Venerable.

@sarana

Even if Abhidhamma is all wrong, for me it doesn’t matter in case if it can help me to get free from all Enlightenment.

Something that is false and wrong cannot lead one to enlightenment. That would be impossible.

@sarana

My evidence for Abhidhamma and Commentaries as the correct and reliable components of Dhamma study are the countless Enlightened people in this very tradition.

Where is the evidence that there are “countless Enlightened people in this very tradition”?
Where is the evidence that the “countless enlightened people in this very tradition” got enlightened by “Abhidhamma and Commentaries”?
How do you know that the “countless enlightened people in this very tradition” didn’t get enlightened only by the parts of the Theravada tradition that were actually taught by the Buddha, and not by or to the contrary, hindered by those parts that were not taught by the Buddha (such as the Abhidhamma and Commentaries)?

@sarana

As I like to say, fly 2 meters in front of me (without any machine or help) and I will believe you that your jhana is correct.

How about, “achieve Nibbana and I will believe your jhana is correct?”

@sarana

Let me know what exactly you consider as “compelling evidence” in the text (I mean, write them out here so we discuss them directly). Whenever I read these documents which try to suggest the historicity of a text unfortunately consists of a large number of tiny suggestions.

So you have read the whole book?

The sections about Abhidhamma, doctrinal features, and denialist rhetoric comes to mind in relation to many of the claims that you made.

Chapter 4: Character of Early Buddhist Texts (pg 66 - 98)
Sub-Chapter 7.4: Denialist Buddhism (pg 145-150)

@sarana

If something is a theory, it is a theory. Making a theory into an established dogma is certainly not right. However, as a representative of Theravada Buddhism who is dependent, grateful, and a part of Theravada Buddhism, I need to be truthful to my place in society. For example, as a Theravada Buddhist in Myanmar, or even in Thailand or Sri Lanka, it is very disrespectful and (I believe) shameful to betray all my teachers and friends and suggest that what they teach and say is wrong. I do not suggest that we all blindly believe everything we hear from our teachers. But if I don’t want to believe the basic teachings of the Theravada Buddhist School, then why would I represent it? By being a Theravada Buddhist monks, we represent the teachings of the First, Second, and Third Council. If a monk doesn’t want to believe them, OK, but may they please not represent them by their clothing and affiliation? You can be a Buddhist and follow whatever rules you like, but why would you represent a group of people (monks) whose ideas you reject?

To be honest, I used to argue that the Theravada sect was closer to the actual teachings of the Buddha than Mahayana and Vajrayana.
My investigations have shown me that Theravada is much further away from the actual teachings of the Buddha than I had previous thought.

Therefore, I try to reject Vajrayana, Mahayana, Theravada, and even “Early Buddhism” to the degree that they do not accord with what the Buddha actually taught, and accept them to the degree that they do (which is a gradual learning process).

@sarana

Let me confess to you, that I will not wear Theravada monk’s robe if I do not accept the main Theravada ideas. I would have to be an impostor, which I am not.

I have been considering ordaining for a while now, but something seems to have held me back.

Thank you for informing me about the realities of the Theravada sect, because I do not think the Theravada sect would be suitable for me to ordain into, if I was so fortunate enough to be able to do so.

Based on what you said, I think if I were able to ordain, I would want to do so in a sect that is even closer to the actual teachings of the Buddha than Theravada is.

I am not sure if there are any sects like that in existence.

My confession to you is that I sometimes wonder if I had heard the Dhamma being taught to me directly from the Buddha in a previous lifetime…and I think it is to some degree different from what the Theravada sect teaches today…as you can imagine, I am not pleased nor happy with this discrepancy because my primary loyalty lies with the Dhamma, and by extension to the Buddha and Sangha - whereas your loyalty seems to lie with the Theravada sect.

I find this to be the fundamental disagreement between you and I.

What do you think?

This thread seems to have strayed far away from the question: Theorists vs. Practitioners - who is better?

From my understanding, SuttaCentral wishes keep posts in a thread relevant to the topic so that it can easily be searched and referenced later on, thereby serving as like a repository of knowledge organized by topic.

So I created a new thread for the topic of just how different and similar Theravada and Early Buddhism is in relation to each other here:

"Theravada Buddhism" and "Early Buddhism"

To what degree and in what ways are Theravada and “Early Buddhism” in disagreement? To what degree and in what ways are Theravada and “Early Buddhism” in agreement? Early Buddhist Texts (Note: The texts listed are not necessarily early in their entirety, perhaps only partially.) Pali Digha Nikaya Majjhima Nikaya Samyutta Nikaya Anguttara Nikaya Dhammapada Udāna Itivuttaka Sutta Nipāta Thera Gāthā Therī Gāthā Pātimokkhas Suttavibhanga Khandhakas: Mahavagga/Cullavagga Chinese Dirgha-agama …