Yes, I remember.
But do you take this as an explicit authorization for monastics to write commentaries?
On some occasions, the Buddha seemed to call a particular explanation foolish too.
So in the vast commentarial literature, how can we tell what is and isn’t okay, especially because the Buddha isn’t really here to reject or accept it.
1 Like
I understand also that. But Buddha was not present to confirm after.
I agree, but it is compelling support of an argument that Abhidhamma was made up later on.
Could you please share “evidence” and “absence of evidence” to support your claim that the Abhidhamma was taught by the Buddha?
“The [positive adjective here] elders said so” is not considered “evidence” nor “absence of evidence.”
1 Like
We do see the Buddha giving approval of commentaries:
Another example of a very early ‘commentary’ is the Madhupi$=ika-sutta, which reports a monk explaining in detail a short saying by the Buddha. This ‘commentary’ was later endorsed by the Buddha and thereby received canonical status.93 Even without explicit approval by the Buddha some of the explanations and comments given by disciples have come down to us as discourses that are considered canonical.
1 Like
What about all the “commentaries” that were not endorsed by the Buddha…because the Buddha had passed away by then?
Does his commentary in that one (or few or many) cases during his lifetime extend to and justify and authorize any and all commentaries that came after the lifetime of the Buddha?
1 Like
It isn’t a compelling argument because it doesn’t tell us anything about if the Abhidhamma was there or not. It can’t be used to support the conclusion that the Abhidhamma is later. That being said, if I recall Ven. Dhammanado (who is a member here) once argued that sutta can sometimes be used to mean “The Dhamma”. So, the Abhidhamma not being mentioned specifically wouldn’t be surprising since it would be covered by “suttas”. However, you would have to contact him to flesh out more of the details of that argument (and i hope I haven’t misrepresented it or him). I believe, however, he is not contactable at the moment until October.
Looking at the Abhidhamma specifically, when discussing it all too often a confusion sets in between the Abhidhamma texts themselves and the commentaries and manuals about/on the Abhidhamma. The Abhidhamma texts are simply built around core mātikās, mātikās which we find in the nikāyas. If we look at the Abhidhamma texts we can see that the Vibhaṅga and the Dhātukathā are found in the Sarvāstivāda-Vaibhāṣika. This points to a common core of mātikās . The Abhidhamma texts then merely expand on these mātikās and give greater detail. Theravāda tradition itself has it that it is not the full texts that were taught by the Buddha to Sāriputta but only a summary, which i imagine would be in the form of mātikās in order to transmit the essentials whilst aiding with memory. These mātikās then are the core of the Abhidhamma and are the source of both schools Abhidhamma texts, becoming the texts we have today. Following from that we get the Aṭṭhakathā which explain the Abhidhamma. It is here we get ideas such as momentariness and sabhāva. Looking at the Abhidhamma texts from the different schools there is a strong possibility that the Theravādin Abhidhamma is the oldest form (thus showing how conservative we were out of all of the schools). Based on this then we can see that the Theravādin Abhidhamma is an old form of Abhidhamma, the core of which can go back to the time of the Buddha. As to why not all schools have the exact same Abhidhamma as Theravāda, if we take the Theravādin origin story this can easily be explained. The Buddha only taught a summary of the Abhidhamma to Ven. Sāriputta who then taught it to his students. Buddha > Abhidhamma > Sāriputta > Sāriputta’s students. The sangha, even during the Buddha’s time, would be quite dispersed over vast areas with different Theras leading different groups and giving them different instructions and sometimes with little contact between these groups, at least for long periods of time. It then becomes easy to see how one schools would have a complete Abhidhamma whilst others would have a partial one or none at all.
“And how does a monk know fords? There is the case where a monk goes time & again to the monks who are learned, well-versed in the tradition, who have memorized the Dhamma, the Vinaya, and the Matikas. He questions them, presents them with his problems: ‘How is this, venerable sir? What is the meaning of this?’ These venerable ones reveal what has not been revealed to him, make plain what has not been made plain to him, resolve his doubts about the many teachings that might give rise to doubt. This is how a monk knows fords.”
MN 33
What about all the “commentaries” that were not endorsed by the Buddha…because the Buddha had passed away by then?
Does his commentary in that one (or few or many) cases during his lifetime extend to and justify and authorize any and all commentaries that came after the lifetime of the Buddha?
I really do not understand this objection you have to people explaining the suttas to an audience. Why does anyone need permission to do that? That is how the Dhamma is taught. If you are against explanations of the suttas then you should be against all explanations of the suttas, which would include an EBT approach and the entire of this forum. In fact you should also be against all Dhamma talks too and you yourself should never explain a sutta, instead merely quoting it.
1 Like
Thank you for this reference. This phrasing seems suspicious because I see the words Dhamma and Vinaya often coupled together as a pair - this triplet of Dhamma, Vinaya, and Matikas…my question is:
How many times does the pair “Dhamma” and “Vinaya” appear together?
How many times does the triplet “Dhamma” and “Vinaya” and “Matika” appear together?
If the triplet is an extremely rare occurrence, it could be a later insertion by the Theravada tradition to support their Abhidhamma tradition.
1 Like
I think that you are twisting my argument.
When I said where did the Buddha authorize the Sangha to write commentaries - I meant authorize in the sense that the Buddha gave the commentaries written by monastics after he passed away any authority whatsoever. I don’t see how the Buddha gave Theravada commentaries any authority whatsoever.
Good thing you said this.
Here, you clump the commentaries in with the all these other modes of explanation, including SuttaCentral, Dhamma talks, random people explaining the Dhamma-Vinaya to each other.
However, in a previous message, you seemed venerate and hold holy the “commentaries” written by the “good and wise elders.”
I am not understanding the discrepancy in this case.
When it suits you, you seem to argue that commentaries cannot be argued against because you clump in with all sorts of explanations, including online forums and explanations of suttas made by all sort of people.
But when it suits you, you give authority to commentaries written by the “good and wise elders” as somehow better the explanations say, given by members of this forum or others.
My questions is since when did the Buddha gave any more authority to the “commentaries written by so-called good and wise elders” than by say members of this forum or “good and wise any other random being from anywhere, even outside of the Theravada traditions.”
Like why does the Theravada traditions think that “explanation of the suttas” made only by members of their own sect have authority, whereas those “explanation of the suttas” made by others, say members of this forum do not?
Can you explain why in one case, the commentaries are clumped together with all sorts of explanations, and in another case, they are elevated into some sort of god-like position written by unverified, supposed “Arahant” (when there isn’t clear evidence that only Arahants wrote commentaries).
1 Like
When I said where did the Buddha authorize the Sangha to write commentaries - I meant authorize in the sense that the Buddha gave the commentaries written by monastics after he passed away any authority whatsoever. I don’t see how the Buddha gave Theravada commentaries any authority whatsoever.
As shown he did give authorisation for monks and nuns to explaining the suttas, that is to say to comment on them and indeed after his final nibbana there would have been a need to since the teachings would have been condensed and so would need unpacking.
Here, you clump the commentaries in with the all these other modes of explanation, including SuttaCentral, Dhamma talks, random people explaining the Dhamma-Vinaya to each other.
However, in a previous message, you seemed venerate and hold holy the “commentaries” written by the “good and wise elders.”
I am not understanding the discrepancy in this case.
A commentary is just an explanation of a sutta and the Dhamma. I agree with and take as authoritative the commentaries of old over new ones.
When it suits you, you seem to argue that commentaries cannot be argued against because you clump in with all sorts of explanations, including online forums and explanations of suttas made by all sort of people
When did I say that? I said by your own logic that would be the case, since you seem to require some kind of authorisation by the Buddha for there to be explanations and commentaries to his suttas.
But when it suits you, you give authority to commentaries written by the “good and wise elders” as somehow better the explanations say, given by members of this forum or others.
Yes, I think they are better explanations. That is my position. Other people will take a different position and will prefer modern commentaries. You seem to be arguing that is bad taste for me to simply follow old commentaries over new ones. I suspect what you want to say is that you do not like the old commentaries but like modern ones. Still, your argument about authorisation would still apply to our new commentaries as much as to the commentaries of old.
My questions is since when did the Buddha gave any more authority to the “commentaries written by so-called good and wise elders” than by say members of this forum or “good and wise any other random being from anywhere, even outside of the Theravada traditions.”
He didn’t. It is for us to decide which commentary is best. To decide who explains the Dhamma best.
Like why does the Theravada traditions think that “explanation of the suttas” made only by members of their own sect have authority, whereas those “explanation of the suttas” made by others, say members of this forum do not?
I follow them because I see in other traditions doctrinal error and because I trust commentaries by practicing Theras who lived closest in time to the Buddha over modern interpretations, or opinions of a stranger on a chat forum.
Can you explain why in one case, the commentaries are clumped together with all sorts of explanations, and in another case, they are elevated into some sort of god-like position written by unverified, supposed “Arahant” (when there isn’t clear evidence that only Arahants wrote commentaries).
If you want to think that Theravada was completely devoid of all Arahants and not a single one among the Theras was wise then you can. That is up to you. As to their authority, 4 levels of authority are recognised by Theravada:
- Sutta: “the well-said” = the three baskets of the Tipiṭaka.
- Suttānuloma: “the according with the well-said” = a direct inference from the Tipiṭaka.
- Atthakathā: “treatise on the meaning” = an ancient commentary.
- Attanomati: “personal opinion” = the expositions and views of later generations of teachers.
As you can see, the suttas have a higher authority than the commentaries whilst personal opinion is the lowest form of authority. So, even in orthodox Theravada they are not treated as being an inerrant and ultimate source of authority but they are above personal opinion.
To return to my point, you decry the Aṭṭhakathā due to some idea that the Buddha needs to authorise them but then, at the same time, you seem perfectly happy with modern commentaries that you agree with. This is why I said what I think you really mean is that you do not like the Aṭṭhakathā and that, of course, is a different argument.
Thank you for this reference. This phrasing seems suspicious because I see the words Dhamma and Vinaya often coupled together as a pair - this triplet of Dhamma, Vinaya, and Matikas…my question is:
How many times does the pair “Dhamma” and “Vinaya” appear together?
How many times does the triplet “Dhamma” and “Vinaya” and “Matika” appear together?If the triplet is an extremely rare occurrence, it could be a later insertion by the Theravada tradition to support their Abhidhamma tradition.
Why would frequency determine if it is an addition or not?
1 Like
Again, he approved of very specific additions of “commentary” by very specific beings, which were added to the “Dhamma-Vinaya” directly.
However, I do not think this approval was generalized indiscriminately to approve of “all commentaries” added by “monks after the death of the Buddha without having it been approved by the Buddha.”
In commentaries, monks may make claims that are not supported by the Dhamma-Vinaya itself. (Devadatta will become a paccekabuddha later on, Abhidhamma was taught to Buddha’s mother and Saritputta, etc.)
Who will verify the claims made by monks in commentaries?
Yes, I think that it is bad taste to follow something “simply because it is old or new.”
Older is not better.
Newer is not better.
Accordance with Dhamma-Vinaya is better.
The Buddha himself said that youth and newness should not be underestimated and condescendingly dismissed:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn03/sn03.001.than.html
“There are these four things, great king, that shouldn’t be despised & disparaged for being young. Which four? A noble warrior, great king, shouldn’t be despised & disparaged for being young. A snake… A fire… And a monk shouldn’t be despised & disparaged for being young. These are the four things that shouldn’t be despised & disparaged for being young.”
You suspect wrongly.
I think that neither the old ones nor the new ones are inherently better.
I think all of them must be tested up against the Dhamma-Vinaya.
I think that he did encourage the Sangha to memorize and pass down the Dhamma-Vinaya, but I don’t think the encouraged the Sangha to create and record and pass down commentaries.
I am confused why members of the Sangha began doing something the Buddha did not explicitly instruct the Sangha to do.
Yes, exactly. That regardless of whether they are new or old, they should be evaluated against the Dhamma-Vinaya.
This is in direct contradiction to your claim (to whatever degree) that “older is better.”
Your counter-accusations that I am claiming that “newer is better” is false.
I am not claiming that newer is better.
Neither newer nor older is inherently better.
In this conversation, I did not ask you about what you do and why.
I asked specifically about whether the Buddha authorized something or not.
It was about trying to figure out if and where the Buddha authorized scores of commentaries to be written - and pointing out how his “approval of specific additions of ‘(seeming) commentary/explanation’ to the Dhamma-Vinaya directly’ made by specific individuals” cannot be generalized to mean “he approves of the creation commentaries by everybody” or “all additions by all the monastics - even those after the death of the Buddha when the Buddha is unable to reject or accept the addition of commentaries inside nor outside of the Dhamma-Vinaya.”
This seems like a malicious debate tactic.
I said there isn’t any evidence that all the commentaries were written by Arahants alone.
Where did I state or imply that “Theravada has no Arahants”?
This is what I am arguing against.
Even in level one, the Buddha seems to divide his teachings into two parts: Dhamma and Vinaya.
On the other hand, Theravada seems to divide the Buddha’s teaching into three parts: Abhidhamma, Sutta, and Vinaya.
I the Buddha claimed that only the Dhamma-Vinaya has authority, not Abhidhamma.
The other 3 levels may be right, may be wrong - depending on how well they accord with the Dhamma-Vinaya.
Whether wrong or right, I don’t think they have any more authority that comments and claims made by beings even today.
Also, I argue that:
Theravada recognizes this 4 levels of authority.
The Buddha seems to recognize only one level of authority: Dhamma (or Dhamma-Vinaya).
This is the fundamental difference in terms of authority, between Theravada and the Buddha, I think.
I don’t decry them.
I just claimed that the Buddha did not authorize them or say that they have any authority whatsoever.
I also stated that they must be tested and evaluated against the Dhamma-Vinaya.
They do not seem inherently better than my word or yours.
Again, you seem to slandering me. Where did I ever mention any modern commentaries?
I claim that both old and new commentaries have no actual authority as recognized by the Buddha and both must be tested and evaluated agains the Dhamma-Vinaya.
I think that only the Dhamma-Vinaya has authority in Buddhism, not commentaries, Abhidhamma, or any other such later additions.
It could help gauge whether someone just slipped something in without anyone noticing as opposed to say stock formulas like the Noble Eightfold Path which would be repeated throughout.
It would be interesting to look at the number of times that the following phrases are used:
Dhamma
Vinaya
Four Noble Truths
Eightfold Path
vs.
Abhidhamma
Matikas
Significantly less frequent or absent mentions could be evidence that these parts were added later on.
For example, “hydropowered electric cars” were likely not mentioned and “astronomy” was probably mentioned very few times in total - this could be used as evidence that the Buddha did not claim or attempt to teach about “hydropowered electric cars” nor “astronomy.”
1 Like
Again, he approved of very specific additions by very specific beings.
When did he ever say that any monk can add whatever they want?
He didn’t and no one is arguing that monks and nuns can add what they want.
You are generalizing his approval that he gave to specific monks on specific explanations - and you are boldly proclaiming: anyone or any monastic is allowed to give explanation and claim that they be representative of the Buddha’s positions (like Theravada does).
So we are back then to only being allowed to simply quote the suttas. No explanations, no Dhamma talks, no books bar pure quotes. This, of course, is not how the Dhamma has been taught for 2000 + years nor is it how it was taught when the Buddha was alive.
Yes, it is bad taste to follow something “simply because it is old.”
Older is not better.
Newer is not better.
Accordance with Dhamma-Vinaya is better.The Buddha himself said that youth and newness should not be underestimated and condescendingly dismissed:
Dahara Sutta: Young
Straw man. I never said we should follow something just because it is old. Being ancient is only part of the reason. Your sutta quote is irrelevant here.
Neither the old ones nor the new ones are inherently better.
All of them must be tested up against the Dhamma-Vinaya.
So now you are ok with monks, nuns and laypeople explaining and commenting on suttas?
You seem to be an extreme conservative in the very negative sense of the word: blindly follow tradition.
The Buddha actually criticizes beings like you for such blind conservative behaviors.
But you seem like an extremely stubbornly blind conservative - I am curious to see what you will sow as a result of the views that you hold and the actions that you take in accordance with those views.
That then would be your misapprehension based on limited information. To give some context, I used to reject Theravadin orthodoxy and tradition. I came to it through reasoning. I do not follow it simply because it is tradition. As for your speculations about my fate due to my views, this isn’t really impressive nor does it really concern me. No matter what position I take there will be someone, somewhere, condemning me for it.
Yes, exactly. That regardless of whether they are new or old, they should be evaluated against the Dhamma-Vinaya.
So commentaries are now ok? That is good to hear.
This is in direct contradiction to your claim that “older is better.”
Strawman. Your words, not mine. Being old is only part of the reason. We also have to check what they say against the suttas. This goes back to the 4 levels of authority.
Your counter-accusations that I am claiming that “newer is better” is false.
I am not claiming that newer is better.Neither newer nor older is inherently better.
I never said that you said “newer is better”. I said it seems you dislike the old commentaries and apply a level of criticism to them that you do not apply to new ones. Within this discussion you have then yo-yo’d between critcising all commentaries due to a lack of authorisation to some commentaries are ok if they align with Vinaya-Dhamma. You need to decide which position you are going to argue. You can not argue both.
I noticed that you do this thing where you switched between “yes, the Buddha did authorize them” and when you are forced to admit that he did not, you switch to “it’s up to us or I choose to do X.”
I have not been “forced” to admit anything. I disagree with everything you have said so far. I explicitly said that the Buddha allowed monks and nuns to explain his teachings and that there would be a need to do so once he had obtained final nibbana. It is then up to us to decide which monks and nuns are explaining his Dhamma best.
You seem to be switching between two lines of reasoning and seem to think that I won’t notice that you switched.
The irony.
In this conversation, I did not ask you about what you do and why.
I asked specifically about whether the Buddha authorized something or not.
Already addressed. If you are going back to this authorisation argument then you should reject all commentaries and explanations.
You seem to switch between “claiming the buddha did say it was okay” and then “making it seem like I am being a bad person and telling you what you can and cannot do” even though I never made any kind of statement saying that you are not free to blindly believed all the false stuff that you want. To the contrary, I acknowledged that your actions belong to you - but this conversation isn’t about you or the views you wish to hold or the actions you wish to do.
You literally argued that my position is in bad taste, albeit on faulty logic on your part.
It was about trying to figure out if and where the Buddha authorized scores of commentaries to be written - and pointing out how his “approval of specific additions made by specific individuals” cannot be generalized to mean “he approves all additions by everybody” or “all additions by all the monastics.”
What do you mean by “addition”? Commentaries explain the Dhamma but they do not add anything new. If by addition you mean just explaining the Dhamma then I have addressed this above. Just think how strange it would be to not have monks and nuns explaining the Dhamma. Laymen arrive for a Dhamma talk. The monk recites a sutta, then leaves without any further comment. This is not the way to instruct people in the Dhamma, since people will have questions as to what the sutta means.
Again, a malicious debate tactic.
I said there isn’t any evidence that all the commentaries were written by Arahants alone.
You somehow falsely state that I claim that “Theravada has no Arahants.”
Not really. The commentaries were composed by Theras of the Theravada school. They were approved of by the elders of the school. When Buddhaghosa wrote the Vism. the Theras also looked over and approved of that before letting him translate the commentaries. There is no direct evidence that the Theras were Arahants, no. There is no evidence I can give to show that anyone is an Arahant or a Buddha. What I am suggesting is that if you reject the commentaries then you essentially reject the wisdom of the Theras, which is to say you doubt or reject the claim that they were Arahants since any commentary would have been known and approved of by them. You can of course do this. Plenty of people from other sects have done so throughout the ages.
This is exactly what I am arguing against.
Even in level one, the Buddha seems to divide his teachings into two parts: Dhamma and Vinaya.
Theravada seems to divide the Buddha’s teaching into three parts: Abhidhamma, Sutta, and Vinaya.I try to obey the authority of the Dhamma-Vinaya only, not Abhidhamma.
The other 3 levels may be right, may be wrong - depending on how well they accord with the Dhamma-Vinaya.
And I am arguing the opposite.
Also, I argue that:
Theravada recognizes this 4 levels of authority.
The Buddha seems to recognize only one level of authority: Dhamma (or Dhamma-Vinaya).This is the fundamental difference in terms of authority, between Theravada and the Buddha, I think.
You will notice that according to Theravada the first source of authority is:
Sutta: “the well-said” = the three baskets of the Tipiṭaka.
As in, including the Abhidhamma.
I don’t decry them. I just stated that the Buddha did not authorize them or say that they have any authority whatsoever.
I also stated that they must be tested against the Dhamma-Vinaya.
They are not inherently better than my word or yours - they must be evaluated
So now you are back to commentaries being ok, we just have to check them against the Dhamma. Once again, you keep jumping around here. I’ll ask you directly and clearly. Is your position A) All commentaries have to be rejected as the Buddha did not authorise them or B) Commentaries are fine, but they have to be checked against the Dhamma. If its A then I disagree with you. It its B then I agree with you, as does orthodox Theravada as per the 4 levels of authority.
Again, you seem to slandering me.
I claim that both old and new commentaries have no actual authority as recognized by the Buddha and both must be tested and evaluated agains the Dhamma-Vinaya.
You have jumped around a bit as mentioned above, so please clarify that this is now your position.
It could help gauge whether someone just slipped something in without anyone noticing as opposed to say stock formulas like the Noble Eightfold Path which would be repeated throughout.
It would be interesting to look at the number of times that the following phrases are used:
Dhamma
Vinaya
Four Noble Truths
Eightfold Path
vs.
Abhidhamma
Matikas
Sorry but you did not answer my question. Why would frequency establish if something has been added or is original?
Neither. You gave me false dichotomy of choices.
I argue:
-
The Buddha did not say that the commentaries said/written by Theras after his lifetime in Theravada have any authority whatsoever. That’s what I mean when I say the Buddha did not authorize them.
Theravada does say that their commentaries have authority. The Buddha did not say this. -
In terms of the content of the commentaries, they should be tested against the Dhamma-Vinaya.
But in this respect, again, commentaries have no special status nor authority.
They must be evaluated against the Dhamma-Vinaya regardless of whether that commentary was made now or at the time of the Buddha or some time between - but older commentary is not inherently better than later commentary - whether it is made by your or me or the Theras, commentary is commentary.
I hope that this answers to core of your criticism.
Maybe not necessarily so. But it could be one indicator.
For example, if the Buddha spent his 45 years teaching only the Dhamma and Vinaya and kept saying Dhamma and Vinaya throughout his 45 years and those two words are extremely frequently mentioned throughout the compilation of teachings, one could get a pretty good sense that the Buddha himself probably referred to his own teachings as the Dhamma and Vinaya.
If the Buddha rarely if ever used words like matika or Abhidhamma, and never actually taught anything that he called “Abhidhamma” and used this word in reference to something else, once or twice, here and there - can you see how a sectarian from whichever of the various sects created an Abhidhamma could have inserted those words here and there into the Dhamma-Vinaya taught by the Buddha in order to make it seem like the Buddha himself said those words, especially to support their claim that the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma?
I argue:
The Buddha did not say that the commentaries said/written by Theras after his lifetime in Theravada have any authority whatsoever. That’s what I mean when I say the Buddha did not authorize them.
Theravada does say that their commentaries have authority. The Buddha did not say this.In terms of the content of the commentaries, they should be tested against the Dhamma-Vinaya.
But in this respect, again, commentaries have no special status nor authority.
They must be evaluated against the Dhamma-Vinaya regardless of whether that commentary was made now or at the time of the Buddha or some time between - but older commentary is not inherently better than later commentary - whether it is made by your or me or the Theras, commentary is commentary.
Thank you for clarifying.
-
Yes, the Buddha did not say Theravadin commentaries have authority. The Buddha did say we should seek out the instruction of learned and wise monks. So, when we say the commentaries have authority it means we should stay true to that advice by following them, as they are the teachings of learned and wise monks. In other words, the Elders of the tradition have an authority when it comes to instruction. This is no different to what happened in the original sangha. Elder monks had authority.
-
I agree that a commentary should be tested against the sutta. We should check to see if the Thera is preaching in accordance with the Dhamma. If he does then that explanation is authoritative.
For example, if the Buddha spent his 45 years teaching only the Dhamma and Vinaya and kept saying Dhamma and Vinaya throughout his 45 years and those two words are extremely frequently mentioned throughout the compilation of teachings, one could get a pretty good sense that the Buddha himself probably referred to his own teachings as the Dhamma and Vinaya.
Well as I said, from an orthodox perspective Dhamma Vinaya can mean just the Nikayas and the Vinaya or it can mean Nikaya, Abhidhamma and Vinaya and, as shown, we see both usages in the suttas (albeit with matika instead of Abhidhamma). Other places where it is used are here:
They enter the rains retreat in a monastery with senior mendicants who are very learned, knowledgeable in the scriptures, who have memorized the teachings, the texts on monastic training, and the matikas.
AN 6.51
It’s when a mendicant doesn’t from time to time go up to those mendicants who are very learned—knowledgeable in the scriptures, who have memorized the teachings, the texts on monastic training, and the matikas—and ask them questions:
AN 11.17
Mātikā
feminine
- a water course Vism.554 (˚âtikkamaka); Mhvs.35, Mhvs.96; Mhvs.37, Mhvs.50; Snp-a.500 (= sobbha); Dhp-a.ii.141 (its purpose: “ito c’ ito ca udakaṃ haritvā attano sassa-kammaṃ sampādenti”); Vv-a.301
- tabulation, register, tabulated summary, condensed contents, esp. of philosophical parts of the Canonical books in the Abhidhamma; used in Vinaya in place of Abhidhamma Piṭaka; probably the original form of that (later) Piṭaka Vin.i.119, Vin.i.337; Vin.ii.8 [cp semantically in similar sense Lat. mātrix = E. matric i.e. register. In BSḳ. mātrikā Divy.18, <…
If the Buddha rarely if ever used words like matika or Abhidhamma, and never actually taught anything that he called “Abhidhamma” and used this word in reference to something else, once or twice, here and there - can you see how a sectarian from whichever of the various sects created an Abhidhamma could have inserted those words here and there into the Dhamma-Vinaya taught by the Buddha in order to make it seem like the Buddha himself said those words, especially to support their claim that the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma?
That is of course is not impossible. It is, however, entirely possible that Mātikā refers to the proto-Abhidhamma, the summaries, given to Sariputta. With that said, simple frequency does not prove anything either way.
1 Like
“Bhikkhus, do not engage in disputatious talk, saying: ‘You don’t understand this Dhamma and Discipline. I understand this Dhamma and Discipline. What, you understand this Dhamma and Discipline! You’re practising wrongly, I’m practising rightly. What should have been said before you said after; what should have been said after you said before. I’m consistent, you’re inconsistent. What you took so long to think out has been overturned. Your thesis has been refuted. Go off to rescue your thesis, for you’re defeated, or disentangle yourself if you can.’ For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, this talk is unbeneficial, irrelevant to the fundamentals of the holy life, and does not lead to revulsion, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna.
“When you talk, bhikkhus, you should talk about: ‘This is suffering’; you should talk about: ‘This is the origin of suffering’; you should talk about: ‘This is the cessation of suffering’; you should talk about: ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. ’ For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, this talk is beneficial, relevant to the fundamentals of the holy life, and leads to revulsion, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna.
“Therefore, bhikkhus, an exertion should be made to understand: ‘This is suffering.’… An exertion should be made to understand: ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’”
https://suttacentral.net/sn56.9/en/bodhi
1 Like
That makes me think a lot of Nalanda University Debates that happened in commentaries and even in at the school with other sects. Some in real life of course was good. Converting many to Buddhism.
In the Sangha, wasn’t elder calculated in terms of how many years a monastic had gone forth? As opposed to “who lived earlier.”
I agree.
I wouldn’t use the word “authoritative” here - unless we agree that I say something on this forum that is in accordance with Dhamma-Vinaya, then that too is “authoritative.”
Instead, I would use a word like say, representative or accurately representative of the Dhamma-Vinaya.
Thank you for these further references.
Did you by any chance find out how many times the word matika and abhidhamma was used in the early texts?
I agree. I made this argument against someone who first presented this argument to me.
That being said, I do think of it as one piece of evidence to be considered - though it isn’t conclusive in and of itself, it does help to refute or confirm certain hypotheses regarding what isn’t and is Dhamma-Vinaya.
1 Like
Greetings!
This topic is extremely broad and has led to much meandering in the prior 98 comments. Since there seems to be no central point to get back to, I’m closing the thread. The Watercooler is for relaxed, lighthearted discussion, mostly of early Buddhism, but it needs just as much focus in its topics as any other category.
Lots of the posting was dominated by a small number of forum members. I encourage you to continue discussion directly in private messages.
4 Likes