Theorists vs. Practitioners - who is better?

The problem is the difference of expression from the time of Buddha and now.

Sometimes for us one word means something else then it was in that time. Also what it means also for us what it means for a monk to give an example like this sutta. What does it all mean? Maybe it’s rebukes examples only. It doesn’t say they did that in the Buddha Sangha. Maybe it also means how they are spreading the Dhamma.

Maybe it is giving discourses against teaching meditation.

In the time of Buddha. They will just sit in a group and meditate in silence.

If one is highly learned
and is settled in the virtues,
they praise him on both counts,
virtuous behavior and learning.

When a disciple of the Buddha is highly learned,
an expert on the Dhamma, endowed with wisdom,
like a coin of refined mountain gold,
who is fit to blame him?
Even the devas praise such a one;
by Brahmā too he is praised.

https://suttacentral.net/an4.6/en/bodhi

We have to just make sure we don’t do these. What means to be in concentration? Doesn’t it mean samadhi. Then Jhana monks maybe kept too much in seclusion in Jhana meditation. It seemed attachments started to grow. Maybe Venerable Mahācunda saw the problem happening in other sects, he just giving a lesson before it happens in the Sangha. It’s like almost why Sangha had recitation of the teachings of Buddha before Buddha died. Actually that’s a perfect example of how Abhidharma started. And it was Sāriputta who did the recitation.

The true Dhamma does not disappear all at once in the way a ship sinks. There are, Kassapa, five detrimental things that lead to the decay and disappearance of the true Dhamma. What are the five? Here the bhikkhus, the bhikkhunīs, the male lay followers, and the female lay followers dwell without reverence and deference towards the Teacher; they dwell without reverence and deference towards the Dhamma; they dwell without reverence and deference towards the Saṅgha; they dwell without reverence and deference towards the training; they dwell without reverence and deference towards concentration. These, Kassapa, are the five detrimental things that lead to the decay and disappearance of the true Dhamma.

https://suttacentral.net/sn16.13/en/bodhi

And I have a question. There is a sutta in samyutta where all the followers of Sariputta until Ananda was walking back and forth. Which I assume was walking meditation. Doesn’t it seems then that all these teachers trained the students as Buddha always guided.

I can’t find it online yet. But in Bhikkhu Bodhi samyutta in 14 Dhatusamyutta Second Chapter Nidanavagga

number 15 (5)

I’m sorry to interrupt but I have created this theory that Abhidharma has started by Sariputta in his group. Buddha has said in sutta that he himself gives a discourse, then Sariputta can give it in more detail.

So the stories behind Abhidharma being of Buddha maybe was not true. In India they name it as Buddhavacana out of respect to the teacher who started the movement.

But there is also the Sariputta Abhidharma. And I think that was the root tradition.

I don’t think it is fair to say that.

I think that the Buddha and Sangha knew/knows the truth.

I think those who haven’t attained at least the first stage of Nibbana may understand the truth to some degree, at least conceptually.

I think some of the truths that can often be found in other religions as well, such as the truth of karma-phala, etc.

“no one really knows” seems to be the position held by a sect/group called “the skeptics” - the Buddha criticized/rejected this group’s position to the degree that truth can actually be known.

It’s one thing to say “I do not know the truth.”
It’s quite another to say “no one knows the truth.”
It’s yet another to say “the truth cannot be known by anyone.”

1 Like

Why have you taken part of my comment out of context?

I have a very strange feeling that you do not provide any substantial (or insubstantial) evidence or real arguments for your brave claims.

It seems as if you are determined to prove that Commentaries and Abhidhamma are wrong or not necessary to study. Is that your intention? Reveal your colors, please.

It seems to me we are reading all what he said from Sarvativada Abhidharma studies. In those studies there is sometimes detailed history of them. Most authors say the same he said.

SARVĀSTIVĀDA ABHIDHARMA
BSTC6039 – ESSAY 1 M B ORSBORN ( 釋慧峰 ) ID# 2006936639 2006/11/11

SARVĀSTIVĀDA ABHIDHARMA LITERATURE

The Treatises of the Earliest Period

The first three texts are traditionally regarded as being composed by direct disciples of the Buddha. The specific authors are different for the various traditions in which these texts survive, but through their contents and format, they are seen to be the oldest of the Abhidharma scriptures. They deal mainly with spiritual practice, with explanations of excerpts from the sūtras.
Before these are discussed, it is worthwhile mentioning the Śāriputra Abhidharma, (T28, No. 1548, 舍利弗阿毘曇論, of 30 fascicles in Chinese translation). Although not included as part of the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma per se, this text is considered as a kind of model text, which has exerted considerable influence over both the Sanskrit Abhidharma and Pali Abhidhamma traditions, in terms of structure and content.

Dharma-skandha-śāstra, by Śāriputra / Maudgalyāyana
The ‘collection of dharmas’, composed by Śāriputra – according to the Sanskrit and Tibetan, or Maudgalyāyana – according to Chinese sources. The Chinese edition was translated by Xuanzang, and appears as: T26, No. 1537, 阿毘達磨法蘊足論, 尊者 大目乾連造, 三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯, in 12 fascicles.
It begins with a mātṛkā as a summary of the topics, showing its antiquity, as these were supposedly only assigned by the Buddha himself. It presents 21 subjects, the first 15 of which concern the practice of the spiritual path, and the realization of its fruits. The 16th deals with ‘various issues’. Subjects 17 to 20 deal with the enumeration of the āyatanas, dhātus and skandhas as encompassing ‘all dharmas’. The 21st is regards dependent origination.

Here the first text traditionally attributed to Sāriputta and the first one by Sarvāstivāda also.

I think due respect must be to Sāriputta. The later tradition of Buddha preaching to gods must had be later tradition to the origin of Abhidharma. (Sorry but not sorry) I think we totally disrespecting Sāriputta probably. Although he is a Arahant. But it’s because new generation made new traditions of the origin of Abhidharma probably. I don’t know :man_shrugging: But we can’t expect to have the correct tradition today. Buddhism declined in everything. What do we expect. Impermanence

This is the context you are responding to, right?

I think you will find relatively compelling evidence here:

Can you please provide substantial evidence for your claims that Abhidhamma was taught by the Buddha/Sariputta/etc. and that the Commentaries are relatively completely in accordance with the Dhamma-Vinaya (if that is what you are claiming)?

No, I think he is encouraging critical thinking of both the Abhidhamma and the commentaries, neither of which are likely to have been taught by the Buddha, I don’t think.

3 Likes

@Upasaka_Dhammasara
Oh, this would be a very funny misunderstanding.

According to Abhidhamma Commentary (and I think the relevant Dhammapada Comy also mentions it) the Buddha taught Abhidhamma in heaven “in detail” and then, every day when He would go for alms round He provided a summary to ven. Sariputta at the Anotatta lake.

The idea that Abhidhamma is coming from ven. Sariputta is perfectly according to the Pali Commentaries, only with the detail that ven. Sariputta is not the author, but the messenger only. The Pali Commentaries further explain that the Buddha taught Abhidhamma in heaven at length, provided whatever He taught to ven. Sariputta in brief, and ven. Sariputta took the brief teaching and taught the “neither long nor short” version to His students.

I am glad that we are finding a common ground. :sparkling_heart:

@SeriousFun136
For me, evidence for Abhidhamma as the original scripture is the number of fully enlightened monks in the history of Theravada Buddhism all the way until now who studied Abhidhamma, meditated, and then taught Abhidhamma as particularly deep and excellent in the exposition of the reality as it is.

One such example and “evidence” if you like is Ledi Sayadaw. Ledi Sayadaw memorized Abhidhamma and recited it in front of the Burmese king and at the same time, he is (as I like to say) the grandfather of meditation retreats in the world. There might have been meditation retreats and centers also before LS, but during my studies of this topic I found out that the great boom of meditation retreats and centers can be quite easily traced to Ledi Sayadaw and His influential writings.

I became a monk to become free from all greed, hatred, and delusion. The reports of Arahants in the Burmese, Sri Lanka, and Thailand are immensely inspirational and I like to learn their experience, their path, and practice. 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. In that case, Abhidhamma would be wrong only in your perception, but not from the practical point. My evidence for Abhidhamma and Commentaries as the correct and reliable components of Dhamma study are the countless Enlightened people in this very tradition.

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. One person in a hundred thousand who practice the same way, a single person who can attain psychic powers is enough for me to believe that the remaining 99 999 persons attained jhanas even though they didn’t achieve any psychic powers. The Buddha one time also mentioned that monks with Six Psychic Powers are the monks who are worthy of offerings - AN 6 - 1. Āhuneyyavaggo - 2. Dutiyaāhuneyyasuttaṃ. (Of course, this might be for the specific audience, given His other Teachings that do not necessarily require 6 Abhinnas for Arahanthood). But for me, the evidence is coming through experience, not through nitpicking.

@SeriousFun136
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. I personally do not buy into this kind of rhetoric. If there is proof that Abhidhamma is not coming from the Buddha’s mouth, then let me know. But I do not buy into a hundred tiny theories which each suggest that things could be this way or another way. They are all just theories. Imagine a hundred thousand soap bubbles. They are really potent, but they all will blast and nothing bubble-like will remain from them. In the same way, these suggestions that Abhidhamma is not the Buddha’s teachings based on a number of theories simply don’t work for me, because they are just theories.

The idea that the original text is wrong and a copy is written, in my opinion, is an insult for the original writer. This is my personal opinion. Whenever I see ven. Sujato @sujato and others suggest that a copy might be more correct than the original (such as in the case Patisambhida Arahants vs. Chalabhinna Arahants mentioned sometime earlier) I personally have a strange feeling that these opinions are biased against the original scriptures. What if the Arahants were really Patisambhida Arahants and not Chalabhinna? Can you 100% say for sure that the scribers in the original country of the text were making up things? What leads you to such a certainty? And if you are not 100% sure, then why would you be so straightforward to claim that Abhidhamma was created after the Buddha passed away without mentioning even a littlest doubt?

So, I would like to appeal to our humbleness. 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?

That also is just my opinion. Criticize me as much as you like. 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.

1 Like

The context I am referring to is the context of my answer, which goes with the Sutta quote provided. Nothing much to do with your declamation.

It seems Theravada Buddhists (monks) do not entirely have the same ideas of teachings and practices.

They are also not entirely accepted by all Buddhists (monks) as representing the teachings and practices of all Buddhist Councils.

The main issue is what are the main Theravada ideas, and that ideas have to be accepted for being Theravada Buddhists (monks).

Yes, thank you for that question.

I believe that the “main ideas” of a group are the ideas which are mentioned as the “main ideas” by that very group or the opposite ideas to those which are mentioned as “not ideas of the group” by that very group.

Now let me suppose that you agree with me. If you agree with me, then here is the evidence that the idea of Abhidhamma as not the Buddha’s original teaching is “not the idea” of the Theravada group, hence the main idea would be that Abhidhamma is the Buddha’s original teaching. Nevertheless, I think this is an important text in the Commentaries which shows why it is good to accept Abhidhamma as the Buddha’s original word.

Pali Text Society Translation Series nos. 8,9
The Expositor (Atthasalini); Translated by Pe Maung Tin, M.A; edited and revised by Mrs. Rhys Davids, D.Litt., M.A., starting at page 35; I have neglected the Pali diacritics for comfortable copying.

“Thus as rehearsed at the Council, the Abhidhamma is a Pitaka by Pitaka-classification, Khuddaka-Nikaya by Nikaya-classification, Veyyakarana by Part-classification and constitutes two or three thousand units of text by the classification of textual units. One of those bhikkhus who studied the Abhidhamma once sat in the midst of bhikkhus who knew all the five Nikayas, and quoting the text (sutta) from the Abhidhamma taught the Doctrine thus: ‘The aggregate of matter is unmoral; of the four (mental) aggregates some are moral, some immoral, and some unmoral. Ten sense-organs are unmoral; the (remaining) two sense-organs may be moral, immoral, or unmoral. Sixteen elements are unmoral; the (remaining) two elements may be moral, immoral, or unmoral. The Fact of the Origination of Ill is immoral; the Fact of the Path is moral; the Fact of Cessation is unmoral; the Fact of Ill may be moral, immoral, or unmoral. Ten controlling powers are unmoral; the controlling power of grief is immoral; the controlling power of (intellect which prompts and inspires us) - “I shall come to know the unknown” - is moral; four controlling powers may be moral or unmoral; six controlling powers may be moral, immoral or unmoral.’ A bhikkhu, seated there, asked, ‘Preacher, you quote a long text as though you were going to encircle Mount Sineru; what text is it?’ ‘Abhidhamma text, brother.’ ‘Why do you quote the Abhidhamma text? Does it not behove you to quote othertexts spoken by the Buddha?’ (Preacher) ‘Brother, by whom was the Abhidhamma taught?’ ‘Not by the Buddha.’ (Preacher) ‘But did you, brother, study the Vinaya-Pitaka?’ ‘No, brother, I did not.’ (Preacher) ‘Methinks, because you have not studied the Vinaya-Pitaka, you say so in ignorance.’ ‘I have, indeed, brother, studied some Vinaya.’ (Preacher) ‘Then that has been badly acquired. You must have been seated at one end of hte assembly and dozing. A person who leaves the world under such teachers as yourself to give the Refuge-formula, or a person who receives the full ordination under a chapter of such teachers as yoursellf, who have badly studied the Vinaya, does amiss. And why? Because of this badly “studying some Vinaya.” For it has been said by the Buddha: “If without any intention of reviling the Vinaya one were to instigate another, saying, Pray study the Suttas or Gathas or Abhidhamma first and afterwards you will learn the Vinaya - there is no offence in him.” (Again, in the Bhikkhuni Vibhanga: “A bhikkhuni is guilty of a minor offence) if she questions on the Abhidhamma or Vinaya after getting permission (to question) on the Suttanta, or on the Suttanta or Vinaya after getting permission (to question) on the Abhidhamma, or on the Suttanta or Abhidhamma after getting permission (to question) on the Vinaya.” But you do not know even that much.’ With so much refutation was the heretic put down.”

The word for “heretic” in the Pali original is “paravādī”, literally “(follower) of others’ ideas.” In other words, somebody who doesn’t accept the main teachings and instead accepts a different teachings. The text continues -

The Mahagosinga Sutta is even a stronger authority (to show that the Abhidhamma is the Buddha’s word). For therein when Sariputta, the Generalissimo of the Law, approached the Teacher to inform him of the reciprocal questions and answers that took place between Mahamoggallana and himself, and told how the former had answered, (the Master said) 'Brother Sariputta, in the religion the talk of two bhikkhus on the Abhidhamma, each asking and answering the other without faltering, is in accord with the Dhamma. Now such a bhikkhu, brother Sariputta, might enhance the beauty of the Gosinga Sala Forest. The Teacher, far from saying that bhikkhus, who knew Abhidhamma, were outside his religion, lifted his drum-like neck and filling (with breath) his mouth, fraught as the full-moon with blessings, emitted his godlike voice congratulating Moggallana thus: ‘Well done, well done, Sariputta! One should answer rightly as Moggallana has done; Moggallana is indeed a preacher of the Dhamma.’ ANd tradition has it that those bhikkhus only who know Abhidhamma are true preachers of the Dhamma; the rest, though they speak on the Dhamma, are not preachers thereof. And why? They, in speaking on the DHamma, confuse the different kinds of Kamma and of its results, the distinction between mind and matter, and the different kinds of states. The students of Abhidhamma do not thus get confused; hence a bhikkhu who knows Abhidhamma, whether he preaches the Dhamma or not, will be able to answer questions whenever asked. He alone, therefore, is a true preacher of the Dhamma. To this the Teacher referred when he approving said, ‘Moggallana has well replied to questions.’ He who prohibits (the teaching of ) Abhidhamma gives a blow to the Wheel of the Conqueror, denies omniscience, subverts the Teacher’s knowledge full of confidence, deceives the audience, obstructs the path of the Ariyas, manifests himself as advocating one of the eighteen causes of dissension in the ORder, is capable of doing acts for which the doer is liable to be excommunicated, or admonished, or scorned (by the Order), and should be dismissed after the particular act of excommunication, admonition, or scorn, and reduced to living on scraps of food.

I am curious whether @Viveka would suggest here that the author of the Commentaries also uses “very emotive language” and suggest him “a bit restraint and dispassion.” :blush:

The text further continues. The word for heretic here is not included the original Pali text and was apparently added by the translator for easier reading -

"But if the heretic should say, had Abhidhamma been taught by the Buddha, there would have been an introduction prefatory to it, just as in many thousands of the Suttas the preface generally runs as, ‘One day the Blessed One was staying in Rajagaha,’ etc., he should be contradicted thus: ‘The Jataka, Suttanipata, Dhammapada, and so on, have no such introductions, and yet they were spoken by the Buddha.’ Furthermore he should be told, ‘O wise one, this Abhidhamma is the province of the Buddhas, not of others; the descent of the Buddhas, their birth, their attainment of perfect wisdom, their turning of the Wheel of the Law, their performance of the Twin Miracle, their visit to the devas, their preaching in the deva-world, and their descent therefrom are all manifest. It would be unreasonable to steal the Treasure-elephant, or horse of the universal Monarch and yoke it to a cart and drive about, or the Treasure-Wheel and fix it to a hay cart and drive about, or to use the Treasure-jewel capable of shedding light to the distance of a yojana by putting it in a cotton basket - and why? Because they are royal property. Even so Abhidhamma is not the province of others; it is the province of the Buddhas only. Such a discourse as the Abhidhamma can be taught by them only; for their descent is manifest … likewise their return from the deva-world. There is, O wise one, no need for an introduction to Abhidhamma.’ When this is so stated, the heterodox opponent would be unable to adduce an illustration in support of his cause.

Here “heterodox” is in the Pali text “paravādinā”, i.e., “by the (follower) of another one’s teachings.”

The Elder Tissabhuti, resident at the Central Park, wishing to show that the place of the Great ENlightenment is an introduction to Abhidhamma, quoted the Padesaviharasutta - ‘Bhikkhus, by whatever mode of life I lived after I first attained Buddhahood, I have [these two weeks] lived by that mode of living.’ This he expanded: There are ten positions: of the aggregates, the field of sense, the elements, the Truths, the controlling powers, the causal signs, applications of mindfulness, jhana, mind, and states. Of these the Teacher at the foot of the great Wisdom Tree intuited the five aggregates fully; for three months he lived only by way of the aggregate of feeling. He intuited the twelve sense-organs and the eighteen elements fully; for three months he lived only, by way of feeling, in the field and in the element of mental presentations. He intuited the four Truths fully; for three months he lived only by way of feeling in the Truth of Ill. He intuited the twenty-two controlling faculties fully; for three months he lived only by way of the five emotional indriyas (Fn: Vibhanga 123). He fully intuited the chain of the causal genesis; for three months he lived by way of feeling with touch as its cause. He intuited the four applications in mindfulness fully; for three months he lived only by way of feeling to which mindfulness was intensely applied. He intuited the four Jhanas fully; for three months he lived only by way of feeling among the factors of Jhana. He intuited mindfully; for three months he lived by way of feeling mind only. He intuited (other) states fully; for three months he lived only by way of (one or other of) the triplet of feeling. Thus the Elder set forth an introduction to Abhidhamma by means of the Padesaviharasutta.

In the following portion, “heterodox” is in original Pali “paravādī”, as we have seen already two times above.

"The Elder Sumanadeva, resident in a village, while translating the Scriptures at the base of the Brazen Palace, thought: ‘This heterodox believer, who does not know the introduction (nidana) to Abhidhamma, is just like one crying (helpless) with uplifted arms in the forest, or like one who has filed a lawsuit without witness.’ And in order to show the introduction, he said, 'At one time the Blessed One lived among the gods on the Pandukambala rock at the foot of the Paricchattaka tree in Tavatimsa. Then the Blessed One taught Abhidhamma to the Tavatimsa. Then the Blessed One taught Abhidhamma to the Tavatimsa gods thus: ‘moral, immoral, and unmoral states of consciousness.’ etc.

Whereas in the Sutta discourses there is but one introduction, in Abhidhamma there are two: one on the Career and its Goal, and one on the teaching. Of these the former comprises the events from the time of Dipankara of the Ten Powers up to the time of attaining the throne under the Wisdom Tree; the latter comprises the events between the last mentioned and the time of turning the Wheel of the Dhamma. Thus for proficiency in the introduction to Abhidhamma, which has both of these, the following questions should be asked: 1. From which source has this Abhidhamma originated? 2. Where has it matured? 3. Where, 4. when, and 5. by whom was it mastered? 6. Where, 7. when, and 8. by whom was it studied? 9. Where, 10. for whose benefit, and 11. for what purpose was it taught? 12. By whom was it accepted? 13. Who are learning it? 14. Who have learnt it? 15. Who knows it by heart? 16. Whose word is it? And 17. by whom has it been handed down?

The reply to these is: 1. Faith which urges to enlightenment was the source. 2. In the five hundred and fifty Jatakas. 3. At the foot of the Wisdom Tree. 4. On the full-moonday of Visakha. 5. By the omniscient Buddha. 6. At the foot of the Wisdom Tree. 7. During the seven days spent at the Jewel House. 8. By the omniscient Buddha. 9. Among the Tavatimsa devas. 10. Of the devas. 11. For release from the four Floods. 12. By the devas. 13. Probationers and good worldlings. 14. Saints free from the Intoxicants. 15. Those who lay it to heart. 16. Of the Blessed the Arahant, the Buddha Supreme. 17. By the unbroken line of teachers. It was conveyed up till the time of the third Council by the Elders Sariputta, Bhaddaji, Sobhita, Piyajali, Piyapala, Piyadassi, Kosiyaputta, Siggava, Sandeha, Moggaliputta, Visudatta, Dhammiya, Dasaka, Sonaka, Revata, and others. After that, it was conveyed by a succession of their pupils."

When we examine Buddhist texts closely and compare various historical recensions that exist, we can observe what are most likely copyist errors, mnemonic errors, and the narrative divergences that resulted from them. It’s simply a function of human error and time. We’re talking about textual traditions that are thousands of years in lineage. No, we don’t have an exact fossil record so-to-speak showing the generation to generation evolution of Buddhist textual traditions, but we have plenty of evidence that they evolved. In Chinese translation in particular, it’s quite clear because there we have preserved versions of Indian Buddhist texts at different points in time ranging from 100 CE to 1000 CE. To think that the Theravada tradition is the only Buddhist scriptural lineage not to evolve over time but rather was frozen in the exact form it had at the time of the Buddha looks like wishful thinking when seen in that light.

The main problem we have with claiming that the Theravada Abhidhamma is the original and unaltered teaching of the Buddha is that the Sarvastivada Abhidharma, which also claims to be the teaching of the Buddha, is somewhat different in structure. If there was one Abhidhamma tradition from the time of the Buddha, that level of divergence wouldn’t be observed. They should look much more similar, but they do not. That said, it does appear that the Abhidhamma traditions did begin fairly early in Buddhist history because there are texts shared in both the Theravada and Sarvastivada canons that are quite similar, while others are quite different. What’s most likely is that the Abhidharma canons as we have them today gradually grew over time after the sectarian splits.

This is not as much the case with the Nikayas and Agamas. They both had the same structures from the start: There’s a Digha/Dirgha collection, a Majjhima/Madhyama collection, a Samyutta/Samyukta collection, and an Anguttara/Ekottarika collection. Their contents differ, but we can observe that the sutta collections clearly began before the sectarian divides that cropped up later in Buddhist history because the various sectarian canons all had this in common.

These aren’t complicated or subtle points, but it does require some comparative research into the different extant Buddhist textual traditions to fully appreciate. When we do that in an objective manner, the sectarian claims of one Buddhist tradition or another as being the one true teaching of the Buddha becomes untenable. We can definitely see a commonality that all the sectarian traditions share, but we also see how much they branched off from each other and created their own materials.

Again, this isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s the nature of things that they change over time. The Theravada scriptural tradition has been subject to impermanence just as everything else has. We do have the good fortune that it is still a living Buddhist tradition. It’s the only complete sectarian canon descending from early Buddhist history that still exists. For the others, we have only pieces. The exception is the Sarvastivada tradition. Thanks to Chinese translations, we have most of that sectarian canon. But it’s in translation, and the translations are from different points in history and vary in quality. And, unfortunately, there’s been little interest in translating them to English.

9 Likes

Thank you for tagging me with your question. Apologies if the context for my comment was not clear here.

Let your curiosity be appeased. I was speaking in the context of the Guidelines for participation in this forum, which are based on the Buddhas teachings on Right Speech.

As you are new to this community, and may not have had an opportunity to familiarise yourself with them as yet, I post the link here for your convenience.

4 Likes

I like when it is put like this. Research is needed and unless we have been present in the heavens or during the Buddha’s “brief” teaching of Abhidhamma to ven. Sariputta, we cannot speak with dogmatic certainty.

What I didn’t appreciate is the “tone” with which some people reject Abhidhamma as a total baloney made up for fun by some know-it-all monks. This kind of approach is not appropriate and it is the kind of approach that I was refuting.

I believe that everybody has the right to have a doubt. Just please, keep doubt as doubt, not as a “truth.” Honestly, I also do not remember being in the heavens listening to the Buddha as a god or hearing ven. Sariputta recite for me the 7 books of Abhidhamma. All I can say is that I respect my teachers and believe that what they have preserved is either perfect or the most perfect they could do for us. I was never talking about the exactness of Abhidhamma. I was talking about the origin of Abhidhamma as a Pitaka regardless to what extent that may be in comparison to what we have today.

So, thank you @cdpatton for a nice summary of the modern approach to Abhidhamma, I am glad that it is positive.

And finally, I know that neither Abhidhamma nor the Commentaries are perfectly exactly accurate copy of the very first original from the First Buddhist Council to a letter and I have also never claimed it. We can see from accounts of the great master Patthana Sayadaw, the greatest authority on Patthana in Myanmar on the seventh book of Abhidhamma, that there has been undertaken editing in Patthana portion of Abhidhamma even in the Sixth Buddhist Council in terms of the repetitions and that the great master Patthana Sayadaw himself is suggesting literally countless further editing remarks for Patthana in His masterpiece “Guide to Patthana” and the full translation of the first two books of Patthana from Pali to English (which I have read whole).

Or in brief, sadhu, sadhu, sadhu. :sparkling_heart:

2 Likes

Sounds like the degree of authenticity of the Abhidhamma is a very ancient debate.

5 Likes

Bhante in Buddhism probably like Christianity new traditions about certain doctrines are always attributed to the the founder.

As we see in the sutta of chanting together. It was Sariputta who made the sort of 1 till 10 detailed explanation of Buddha’s teaching. And at the end Buddha approved.

And like I said Buddha says in sutta that Sariputta gives more detailed discourse than himself. All the hint are in the suttas

Buddhism is like Christianity. Whatever was passed down as tradition stays tradition. But the reality have to be searched for.

For me. The info I got from suttas is indicating that Abhidharma was probably the way Sariputta taught. I mean the early basic ones. This I got from the suttas. That indicate that Sariputta had a wisdom focused group. And that is actually the tradition of Abhidharma.

Because his way of teaching is supposed to someone attain the first Path

That’s why some Abhidharma style commmentary has a way to make immediate illumination.

But the second book of Sarvastivada is the earliest of them and it actually already focus on that Chanting Together teaching style. So I understand from there started all Abhidharma texts. From something Sariputta organized infront Buddha.

We have in Theravada supposed earliest text but seeing Indian text is what shows what happened.

Saṃgīti-paryāya-śāstra, by Mahākauṣṭhila / Śāriputra

The ‘recitation together’, composed by Mahākauṣṭhila – according to the Sanskrit and Tibetan, or Śāriputra – according to the Chinese sources. The Chinese recension was translated by Xuanzang: T26, No. 1536, 阿毘達磨集異門足論, 尊者舍利子說, 三 藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯, in 20 fascicles.

Structurally, the Saṃgīti-paryāya is similar to the Dharma-skandha, though earlier, as the latter is mentioned in the former. It is basically a mātṛkā on the early teachings, arranged in groups of dharmas by number, similar to the Ekottarikāgama.

This text, as the name implies, is essentially a commentary on the Saṃgīti-sūtra (T 9, Digha-nikāya no. 33). This also indicates that the contents are more a gathering together and assemblage of the Buddha’s Dharma, than any new theory or discussion. The background to the first recital of the Saṃgīti-sūtra, as the Jainas fell into disarray after the death of the Mahāvīra, and the Buddhist Saṃgha gathered together to recite the core teachings of the Dharma to prevent such a split in their own religion, perhaps indicates the fear of present or impending schism arising in the Saṃgha on the part of those who compiled this Abhidharma work, some time later.

So my point is like happened to a prophet living in desert in getting illumination happened before to Buddhism.

To that you to know history
There was a time in India the tradition was persecuted probably that when real tradition is lost and the new generation have to create new belief.

And another way to see it easy is because all sources don’t agree.

And there is tradition also that Indians attribute a work to the person who inspired the writing of the text. But it doesn’t actually mean he wrote it or created it. It’s weird

Hello Venerable sir. I haven’t spoken to you yet. Thank you for being a part of the monastic community and sharing the Dhamma. May you reach Nibbana.

Unfortunately when one starts a thread with a such a provocative title, it will likely result in a conversation filled with attachment and clinging to ideas and beliefs and degrade into a unwholesome and or rude conversation. I don’t have an opinion on the actual debate except for what I say below. But just wanted to share that context of maybe why this conversation has gone a little sideways.

This is just me speaking in general and about this thread now Bhante and not to you directly:

I am not speaking from a high ground or any authority. But I have noticed a lot of unwholesome feelings arise from this thread for me and others. So, here it is. For me this thread has been a great reminder to work on treating all people with loving kindness no matter what they believe, do or say. A reminder that clinging to views and attachments causes suffering for ourselves and others. This is all per the Suttas and commentaries of course.

Let none deceive another,
Or despise any being in any state.
Let none through anger or ill-will
Wish harm upon another.
Even as a mother protects with her life
Her child, her only child,
So with a boundless heart
Should one cherish all living beings;
Radiating kindness over the entire world:
Spreading upwards to the skies,
And downwards to the depths;
Outwards and unbounded,
Freed from hatred and ill-will.
Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down
Free from drowsiness,
One should sustain this recollection.
This is said to be the sublime abiding.
By not holding to fixed views,
The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision,
Being freed from all sense desires,
Is not born again into this world.>

SN 1.8

6 Likes

This is not true. What is true is that, as Frauwallner has shown, there is a core of material that is shared by the Theravada Abhidhamma and the northern Abhidharmas. See more here: Abhidharma - Wikipedia

Not really. There is continuity of course, but the Abhidhamma system is a later development. The best evidence for this is the very fact that while the early suttas of the different schools are often more or less identical, the Abhidharma texts differ considerably. This shows they developed after the suttas and thus are not from the time of the Buddha. For more info I would say read Frauwallner’s study of Abhidharma or this essay by Noa Ronkin: From the Buddha's Teaching to the Abhidhamma | Cairn.info

The evidence is in the works of modern scholars who have studied Abhidharma like Frauwallner. Of course as I have pointed out above, the best argument for the lateness of the Abhidhamma is the differences among the abhidharmas of the different schools.

I do not think they are necessary to understand the Dhamma, no. That does not mean I think they are totally useless or wrong however. Though I do think they contain ideas that were not taught by the Buddha, for example, the theory of momentariness or the theory of the “heart base”. So it can certainly confuse people.

I think I mainly agree with Sujato’s position here. The commentaries are very useful, especially for translators and scholars, but they are not the word of the Buddha and must be read critically. That doesn’t mean however they they can’t help illuminate and understand certain passages, so I wouldn’t say people shouldn’t study them.

8 Likes

Abhidhamma, the Commentaries, are in fact not from the 1st council. Also, all EBTs are not the word of the Buddha. They are just texts, some early compiled, some later.

The earliest text contained in the Pali Canon, in terms of the formation of early Buddhist texts, not just languages, is found in SN/SA, particularly the so-called sutta/sutra-anga portion of SN/SA. This finding is according to the scholar-monk, Yin Shun. See pp. 7-11, and 2-7 in Choong Mun-keat, The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism: A Comparative Study Based on the Sutra-anga portion of the Pali Samyutta-Nikaya and the Chinese Samyukta-agama . Series: Beitrage zur Indologie Band 32; Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden, 2000.

2 Likes