@Upasaka_Dhammasara
But this is still just a theory, an attempt to find a fault with Abhidhamma.
Why don’t you look at it from the other side and try to find reasons why Abhidhamma is the original teachings?
@Dukkha
In my understanding loving-kindness is not just loving everybody, but also helping everybody to be happy in their life. In Anguttara Nikaya Ones he Buddha has said that He saw nothing worse in the world than Wrong View and that there is nothing more dangerous than Wrong View.
By various means we are trying to get the other person on right view. Although all speech may not be always pleasant, there is a reason for it and that is genuine love and care. As the Buddha said in Majjhima Nikaya Aranavibhanga Sutta -
“But when one knows overt sharp speech to be true, correct, and beneficial, one may utter it, knowing the time to do so.” (BB MN p.1084)
This could be written in a more exact way. The way you wrote it seems to be biased and prejudiced. Although Abhidhamma, Commentaries, and the text in most ancient Tipitaka has been edited by time, the added portions have been well mentioned by the Commentaries, hence we know what is original or not. For example, Majjhima Nikaya’s Bakula Sutta is specifically mentioned in the Commentaries as “added by the Second Buddhist Council.” However, what Commentaries do not mention as added by a later council is to be accepted as originally from the Buddha’s time or, if you wish, keep your theories and doubts as a non-member of the Theravada Buddhist community.
How do you know that they were fully-enlightened?
Did you directly understand their minds with your own mind?
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.
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”?
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”?
May you be happy, Venerable.
Something that is false and wrong cannot lead one to enlightenment. That would be impossible.
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)?
How about, “achieve Nibbana and I will believe your jhana is correct?”
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)
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).
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:
Bhante it’s a theory because we don’t know the real tradition. I like Abhidharma. Commentaries. Matter a fact I read already read more Indian commentaries before. So maybe my scope of understanding the tradition seems to be the fact it’s the same in these commentaries. I’m not looking for excuse. For me it’s about searching the obvious tradition valid and visible already in the suttas. And for me Sāriputta started explaining Buddha’s teaching in this detailed form. All what I say just give Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar. I truly appreciate that you brought this forth about commentaries. Right now suddenly I have a lot in the library. I didn’t know there is so much. Some are later. But reading commentaries is like listening discourses straight from the masters. I find it strange. Our understanding. Commentaries is like listening to monks on YouTube. But ancient I like reading all . Lastly I did read a lot of the Indian sources. There is obvious disagreement in tradition.
For I take the example of Jatakas. Indian sources say there was some schools didn’t accept them as Buddhavacana. In that it has been studied that the obvious reasons because mostly is just those Indian stories that has actually predating religion. But I see the phase. It started with inspiration from vinaya. When Buddha gave stories of people that lived in the past.
Another thing I noticed now The treatise on Paramis by Dhammapala extracted from one of his commentaries he quoted Buddha preaching the Paramis for Buddhahood. Such things in commentaries can be anything that is really not Buddha words. But in that time making commentaries it’s normal using Indian influence.
For me Buddhaghosa and Dhammapala is coming from a tradition of Sthavira in India but it’s actually a tradition more open already. And they hoping already to see the future Buddha. It was common in that time. Buddhaghosa for example wished see Metteyya Buddha and attain Arahantship. And Dhammapāla probably is into the same . Because this parami teaching exposes who he was. He clearly has the tradition with the tradition of needing to be in front a Buddha for the aspiration to come true.
Another thing I noticed in commentaries in 4-5 CE in India they don’t use Brahma Sahampati, they use Mahabrahma.
Why I say this because the after schism maybe made every new sect made their own views in commentaries and sometimes we have to see another angle. I realize in other Indian commentaries that the doctrines varied a lot. Even sutras there was more. If you see the ones quoted in debates. You like what is that? Buddha said that? This was common after schism
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.
That is essentially what I said. The material of the Dhammasaṅganī and the Vibhaṅga can be found in other schools, thus they represent the earliest form of Abhidhamma. The matikas are nothing but an expansion of the various lists we see in the suttas. Nothing suggests that said matikas are from a very late period and they likely go back to the time of the Buddha himself.
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.
It would help if you clarified what you mean. Are you referring to the Abhidhammic texts themselves or the commentary on those texts? If its the commentary and ideas such as sabhāva, momentariness and the like then yes these are later elaborations as they come from the commentarial tradition and are not found in the Abhidhamma texts themselves. Even orthodox Theravada recognises that. I see no reason to reject the commenterial explanations of the Dhamma (in this case through the Abhidhamma) in favour of more modern and highly idiosyncratic ones. When we look at the commentarial material there is nothing in there which contradicts the Abhidhamma nor the suttas. When we look at the other schools we see much that does. This returns us to my earlier point that the Theravadin Abhidhamma is likely an older and more conservative version, which isn’t unlikely given the nature of the tradition, with a commentarial tradition that did not deviate from the suttas nor Abhidhamma and so what the Buddha taught. It is pure Dhamma in the sense of its great depth and analysis in the abstract, removed from any context or personalised teachings of the Dhamma like what we see in the suttas.
So, the core of the 1st two primary texts of the Abhidhamma are old and likely go back to the time of the Buddha. Even if we say it comes from after the parinibbana its not much later than that, from when we can be sure that arahants were still around to check things over. Following from this a commentarial tradition developed which gave further explanations of these teachings from which we get ideas such as own-nature, momentariness etc.
Out of interest, have you read much of the Abhidhamma or the commentaries?
It was added because they believed he was the future Buddha?
Besides that there is another proof really mysterious
According to Dhammaruwan’s memories, he learned the Pāli chants in a former lifetime in India, where he had been born as the son of a brahmin and trained in memorization of the Vedas. He had gone forth as a Buddhist monk and become a student of the eminent monk Buddhaghosa at Nālandā. After being trained as a reciter, together with other monks who had similarly been trained he was chosen to accompany Buddhaghosa from India to Sri Lanka. Having come to Sri Lanka, he stayed with Buddhaghosa at the Mahāvihāra in Anurādhapura.
I believe Dhammapala was the exact Dharmapala from Nālandā University also.
It’s said by Chinese source that he was taught in all 18 schools.
Buddhaghosa maybe was the same
Why we don’t have information where they exactly came from? I don’t think Theravada is going to say that.
They are scholars. Scholars of India in that time is mostly of Nālandā tradition. Buddhaghosa might be from that tradition before they made the big building.
A time where Chinese saw only the Sāriputta stupa there. But maybe there was a school somewhere else.
I’m not personally in that camp that rejects the Abhidhamma traditions outright. I think perhaps Abhidhamma became a bit overwrought, but it’s certainly a valuable part of the Buddhist tradition. It’s also valuable that the Theravada tradition has preserved such an extensive commentarial literature. It gives us a window into the past. The Agamas unfortunately lack that level of exegesis, so there are passages that are just mysterious today.
I also don’t think that the variations that I see as I translate Agamas from Chinese rise to the level that invalidates one Buddhist tradition or the other. It’s fascinating to me in the literary sense to see the different versions of traditional stories, but it’s not as though the differences would stop Buddhists from achieving arhattva if they practiced with one canon or the other. It’s really just a matter of history to me.
In what way to you see it as a valuable part? In other words, what value do you see in it?
Personally, I can see how the Kathavatthu is valuable to reconstruct the history of early Buddhist schools and how the analyses according to the suttas of the Vibhanga can sometimes help with the meaning of some words found in the suttas (‘parimukkham’ as an example). But I didn’t find any use of the rest of the books (yet). I’d be interested to know how some people are using this abhidhammic content and what value they see in it (like for example, notion X in this abhidhamma book helped me understand sutta Y).
To me, it’s not because it has been held in high esteem by a tradition over centuries that it is necessarily valuable.
Questioning the authenticity or value of the Abhidhamma is seen as being disrespectful, or ‘not appropriate’ by traditional Theravadins, as seen in this thread or on Dhammawheel for example, and I really don’t understand this reaction. If someone knows something for sure, or have an unshakable belief in it, then usually that person does not care if someone else criticizes or questions this belief. On the contrary when someone reacts to criticisms of a belief or invoke notions of ‘disrespect’ etc, it is usually because, IMHO, they themselves have some doubts about their beliefs.
This I came to see it that way as well. I do value the commentaries as a great help for understanding some of the Pali vocabulary and the history of Buddhism also. But the parts of the commentaries that interpret the suttas in an abhidhammic framework or that add explanatory stories seems to me more a detrimental hindrance than a valuable addition.
Catching up on this thread was confusing: a mix of genuinely interesting positions with hotly-defended positions. All contributors, I believe, follow the same Dhamma. It’s inevitable that in thousands of years a mix of opinions about those things we hold dear has arisen. As followers of the N8fP, surely using Right Speech, gently and respectfully is what everyone aspires to do.
There’s space for all relevant opinions to be tabled, along with appropriate support. Please take time before you write more to pause for a moment, hold your readers with metta and remember that they, like yourselves, are also seeking an end to suffering. Let’s try to make all words respectful, and to write all views with gentleness.
Well, there’s different angles to an open question like this. Value can be in terms of utility to a practitioner, historical perspective, philosophical creativity, and so on. I don’t see how the Abhidhamma tradition can be simply discarded, but on the other hand I can see that an individual practitioner can do without for the most part.
The original context of Abhidhamma texts before writing became a common practice among Buddhists also makes some of the texts difficult to read or find useful. Today we have translations like those by Bhikkhu Bodhi with indices at the end of them that serve similar purposes as the Abhidhamma matrices had. In an oral tradition, there’s the added difficulty in finding and remember the threads scattered throughout the suttas, and early Abhidhamma was an attempt to make the jumble of stories and ideas more coherent. Later Abhidhamma texts became more focused on creating coherent philosophical understandings. We don’t have to completely agree with any of this to understand its value to understanding the Buddhist tradition over time.
These issues aren’t related to Abhidhamma to me so much as they are to sectarianism and politics. It’s unfortunate and distressing to me that these trends of thought have invaded Buddhist communities as much as they have other parts of modern life. Ideological attitudes lead people down the road to personal conflict and adherence to views that blots out our ability to think creatively and appreciate the ideas and thoughts of others, whether they are people who we communicate with on internet forums or people who recited Abhidhamma texts a couple thousand years ago.
You think this is a modern phenomenon? The Buddhist traditions have always been sectarian. Buddha himself could also have been labelled as being sectarian given how much he criticises other religious/philosophical sects at the time. Even EBT folk are sectarian
I’ve been interacting with western Buddhists for about 3o years now. It wasn’t like this in the 1990s. The English speaking world has had its ideological obsessions for a long time, of course, but they hadn’t penetrated the Buddhist community to this extent. So, yes, there is a trend that is more recent that I see.
Sectarianism on the whole was frowned upon by EBT Buddhists. They rejected philosophical positions based on whether they threatened the entire spiritual project, not based on small differences of opinion. Adherence to views and sectarianism as a threat to the spiritual life can be seen discussed in EBTs usually using Brahmins as the examples of these problematic mentalities.
I’ve been interacting with western Buddhists for about 3o years now. It wasn’t like this in the 1990s. The English speaking world has had its ideological obsessions for a long time, of course, but they hadn’t penetrated the Buddhist community to this extent. So, yes, there is a trend that is more recent that I see.
You really see no sectarianism in Buddhism prior to 30 years ago? Nothing in the whole history of Buddhism?
Sectarianism on the whole was frowned upon by EBT Buddhists. They rejected philosophical positions based on whether they threatened the entire spiritual project, not based on small differences of opinion. Adherence to views and sectarianism as a threat to the spiritual life can be seen discussed in EBTs usually using Brahmins as the examples of these problematic mentalities.
Clinging to views yes. Asserting Buddhist ideas, no. The Buddha and his followers certainly asserted that the Dhamma and the NEFP is the only way to reach nibbana, with not so very kind words for the other sects. This shows that asserting doctrine is not necessarily the result of clinging to views, although it can still be labelled as being “sectarian” by those outside. We should also bear in mind that taking an “open”, sceptical or universalist position can be as much a position of clinging as any other.
If you have a bit of time, could you go into more details? Your perspective and experience seems very valuable for my own learning about how to discuss all these topics, but I don’t know enough about the period you’re referring to to really make sense of what you just said…
For example, when you say:
What are referring to by ‘this’ and what trend are you talking about?
Is that the EBT Buddhists from the 90s or at the time of the Buddha?
Do you feel there is an issue in the way the present day Early Buddhist community is engaging with the more traditional Buddhists or on the contrary in the way the traditional Buddhists respond to the Early Buddhists claims? (Or were you making an entire different point?! )
I don’t have 30+ years of experience in this particular area, but, as in other areas of study and development, I think that that easy availability of all kinds of different information makes the situation quite different. In the “old days”, practitioners might know one or two teachers (who in some cases they had to travel to other countries to find) and a small collection of books. The whole question of this-or-that interpretation simply didn’t arise. They were just grateful to have a teacher giving useful advice and support.
Even now, I can’t imagine having arguments over technical issues in the sort of in-person groups that I have experience with. People obviously come with different backgrounds and experiences, but we go to learn and to practice, not to debate.
This is just a general comment. Mike yours happens to be the last, accidentally. It is about this thread, that has disturbed me.
This thread reminds me of Akkosa sutta, not pointing fingers, not repeating accusations, this is just the comment of a bystander. One can take it any way one wants. Akkosa was an instance where Buddha was accused by a brahmin, and it displays the attitude of Buddha towards the accuser, it is a lesson for all of us. To summarize, if a buffet is served to you, and you don’t partake of the buffet? what happens to that sumptuous meal? the one who served the meal is left with it.
It also reminds me of suttas on Hiri Otappa.
Hiri, the sense of shame, has an internal reference; it is rooted in self-respect and induces us to shrink from wrongdoing out of a feeling of personal honor. Ottappa, fear of wrongdoing, has an external orientation. It is the voice of conscience that warns us of the dire consequences of moral transgression: blame and punishment by others, the painful kammic results of evil deeds, the impediment to our desire for liberation from suffering.
An excerpt from one of the suttas that address this issue.
Here, bhikshus, a noble disciple is one who has moral shame. He feels moral shame towards wrong bodily actions, wrong verbal action, wrong mental action. He is endowed with moral shame towards evil unwholesome states.
excerpt from Akkosa specifically.
“For one free of anger, tamed, living in balance,
freed by right knowledge,
at peace, poised:
where would anger come from?
When you get angry at an angry person
you just make things worse for yourself.
When you don’t get angry at an angry person
you win a battle hard to win.
I like reading all . Lastly I did read a lot of the Indian sources. There is obvious disagreement in tradition.
)
