It does not matter whether the Buddha taught it or not, what matters is whether or not the ideas expressed therein are in line with the Sutta.
Ven. @Brahmali says nothing about the validity of the Interpretation per se but i think the discourse gives an impression that the Eightfold Noble Path as it was taught by the Buddha and the Eightfold Noble Path as it is explained in the Abhidhamma might be two different things and the latter is not in accord with the Dhamma but this is just how it seemed to me based on the expression.
Given that the Discourses of the Sutta Pitaka were given to particular audience there are many passages which are open to interpretation. What Abhidhamma does is offer a Theravadin interpretation which is quite precise and comprehensive.
People usually rejecting Abhidhamma due to its sheer size and amount of words. EBTs always think of Buddha Dhamma as simple teaching to be picked up as if a simple theory.
What they forget is the Buddha himself mentioned that the Dhamma he realized and enlightened on is deep, very profound, difficult to see by this generation of people plagued by desires, as if swimming against water current. Even Ven. Ananda Thera was reprimanded by the Buddha for saying Paticca Samuppada is clear and easy to him, despite he is a Sotapanna.
EBTs though they claimed to be returning to original meaning of the Suttas, inevitably they created a lot of wild guesses and personal interpretation that sometimes contradict to what Buddha taught. I think I’m better with classical Theravada rather than this Acariyavada’s EBT school of thought, which always overestimate themselves.
To me, the fact that Pali Tipitaka canon was approved by Arahants during the Third Council is enough for me. I will just use it as a raft to cross the flood of Samsara.
Except, Theravada “3rd council” Is historically questionable.
Did Mogaliputta Tissa really lead a council to recite the canon?
Vinaya internal record stop at 2nd council.
The Sarvastivada when they made their own Buddhist Council at Kashmir, called it the 3rd council.
No other record of 3rd council, by Mogaliputta, at the time of King Asoka, from other sources, other lineage, other sect. It is not even recorded in Asokavadana.
The only claim about this “Theravada 3rd council” Is made in Dipavamsa, written in Srilanka 400 years after Asoka.
Also
4. Other sects have their own set of Abhidhamma.
This would not have happened if 3rd council happen before sects separation.
I’m unconvinced that “not drawing upon” is the same thing as “rejecting”. The first means “to leave something alone”. The second means “to actively push away”.
The sloppy use of a word like “reject” is the typical sort of thing that a person seeking to polarize a group, would say; trying to get everyone in a group to polarize into two extremes (either “pro-Abhidhamma”, or “anti-Abhidhamma” in this case), with no middle ground possible.
This is very un-Buddhist, when any sort of middle ground, or Middle Way, is lost.
In the Abhidharmakosa, Vasubandhu states, “There is no other way of pacifying the afflictions than through the discernment of dharmas, the sole purpose for which Abhidharma was taught.”
That statement woos me no more effectively than the following:
“There is no way to assuage hunger, other than through eating food. And by the way, my hamburgers that I’m selling are the most delicious food there is.”
I think a better title for the OP would be the following:
“Why does the Abhidhamma have so little woo-power over so-called Westerner Theravada Buddhists, compared with the much-larger woo-power of the Early Buddhist Texts”?
Perhaps better is “why do contemporary theravadins prefer to set Abhidhamma aside” but some do outright dismiss it as well.
As i see it, learning Gatha & Sutta first is the inclination nowadays, it has it’s merit but a Theravadin probably should eventually also master the Abhidhamma expression and certainly not dismiss the Abhidhamma as wrong view.
Historically Abhidhamma was sometimes taught before the Sutta, such as in the case of Ven. Nagasena (Milindapanha).
Vasubandhu was a specialist in Sarvastivada abhidharma, during a time when abhidharma had been slowly replacing the sutras for hundreds of years. During his time, there was a preference for abhidharma with its precision, systems, logic, etc. It was the “modern” approach for Buddhism throughout the middle period (e.g. 1-500 CE).
Well, is there any other schools which survives until now, and has its focus to be the arahant path?
For those interested in Early Buddhism, Theravada is the closest way to get in, as compared to Mahayana or Vajrayana lineage.
Say if someone were to split out from Theravada and claim that their ordination lineage is Early Buddhism, it might be seen negatively (to commit schism is a technical thing and not easily done). No one wants a schism. So it’s best to be seen that Early Buddhism is a sub movement within Theravada (but sometimes Mahayana ordain monks and nuns may also be interested in just promoting Early Buddhism), and there’s no schism issue raised.
There can be monasteries with focus on Early Buddhism, with Theravada Vinaya lineage.
There’s a few reasons for not completely trusting Abhidhamma over the suttas.
There’s multiple instances where the Abhidhamma and commentaries contradicts the sutta. Perhaps someone has a list of this in detail. Off the top of my mind is: there’s in between death and rebirth in sutta, none (instantaneous rebirth) according to Theravada. Plenty more of the contradictions. Mostly minor stuffs.
When I first learnt the (introduction to) Abhidhamma (still now I haven’t read the original Abhidhamma yet), I haven’t read the full suttas, I really find it’s amazing for being so detailed and systematic, and increased my faith.
Then I heard about the Early Buddhism movement and some common things which the Abhidhamma and sutta contradict each other. Given that the Abhidhamma is commonly said to be later compilation, I would place more trust in the suttas.
Then having kept the possible conflict points in mind, I read the suttas (4 Nikayas, haven’t finished KN). Indeed, it’s as those who had gone before me said. There’s contradiction. The only way to say there’s no contradiction is to use Abhidhamma to overwrite the suttas. Or else admit that Abhidhamma cannot be accepted wholesale, but the parts which are not in contradiction with the suttas are ok. One has to keep an eye out on which is which.
I believe a lot of the more senior, long time Buddhist and monks and nuns who are in Early Buddhism had gone through more or less the same story and concluded that it’s not rational to use Abhidhamma to overwrite the suttas.
Some monks may go to the extent of rejecting the whole Abhidhamma, some may just appreciate the parts which are not in contradiction with the suttas. That’s up to individual.
Also, consider the range of Buddhisms we have now: from secular Buddhism (don’t accept rebirth, kamma, supernormal powers, devas, ghosts etc), to Early Buddhism (sutta first, some parts of Abhidhamma and commentaries are not reliable) to Theravada (all Tipitaka and commentaries), to Mahayana (Mahayana sutras added to the Agamas) to Vajrayana (includes mantra and tantra path, not found in other mahayana schools).
Each level up accepts more and more texts as authentic, each level down has their own reasons to reject or not consider the later texts as authentic. (Except for secular Buddhism who goes too far, overriding the suttas with materialism view)
So it’s a good way to appreciate the other sides, especially for the 3 in the middle of what the people in that camp of Buddhism feels about other camps and why. And the attitudes and interaction in between the camps.
It doesn’t matter the tradition. It might be not true. But one thing is for sure. Buddha allowed his disciples to explain his Dharma in a detailed matter. Not all minds think alike. And since Buddha said Sariputta taught for stream-entry. It’s very likely that Abhidharma tradition still started from him. And more likely its a oral tradition that got written down late. And started to become popular late. Starting when suttas was lost in India.
I first became interested in Buddhism because I accidentally stumbled upon the book Abhidhammattasangaha and read it. Since then I have tried to collect Abhidhamma texts which are grouped into 7 (seven) major books. I also majored in Abhidhamma for 4 years. As time went on, I became more and more exploring the Sutta Pitaka than abhidhamma. Because the Sutta Pitaka of course has a historical setting of events that helps us understand the contextual dhamma better. But even so, the context of the abhidhammic presentation of dhamma has really helped me in interpreting the Sutta Pitaka and taking the best inspiration from the Sutta Pitaka. I myself have seen that some of the dhamma writings of past teachers/masters are strongly oriented towards abhidhamma. This is indeed viewed by me at this time as something that is too rigid to hold on to abhidhamma.
When we study Abhidhamma, it still needs a lot of calibration when we think about applying it in practice. I emphasize again “practice”. Because even if abhidhamma is used as an object of debate, it will only increase the arrogance and misunderstanding of many people.
But back to all of us. Gaining penetration of dhammas is a great blessing of ripening good karma so that it is conditioned to bear fruit into penetrating understanding of dhamma. It is not guaranteed whether it comes only to those who put aside abhidhamma, or to those who hold onto abhidhamma. But for myself, the Sutta Pitaka is the basic foundation as a dhamma reference, but the abhidhamma helps a lot and is very useful after being skillfully calibrated here and there. Because it is impossible for us to realize and penetrate the dhamma based solely on charts and matrix.
Is there a sentient being on the planet that has rejected Bruce Springsteen? If so, I have some tar and feathers to put to work.
Poor man wanna be rich
Rich man wanna be king
And a king ain’t satisfied
'Til he rules everything
I wanna go out tonight
I wanna find out what I got
Well, I believe in the love that you gave me
I believe in the faith that can save me
I believe in the hope and I pray
That someday it may raise me
Above these
Badlands, you gotta live it everyday
Let the broken hearts stand
As the price you’ve gotta pay
Keep pushin’ 'til it’s understood
And these badlands start treating us good
The majority of the Theravada monks do not follow vinaya and shamelessly break the vinaya and go so far as to teach the lay people that it is good to offer cash directly to the monks’ hands. These monks theoretically should be brought to an official monk meeting in a Sima (like a courtroom) and asked thrice to “see their offences and stop doing such shameless actions”. If they don’t, the community can impose “probation” on the defiant offenders.
The same can be imposed on those who disregard the Abhidhamma and Commentary explanations of the Suttas. It should be clear that traditional Theravadans who follow the Abhidhamma and Commentary believe that the Mula (root texts) are the foremost authority with the Abhidhamma and Commentaries to help explain these Suttas. It is wrong to accuse Theravadans of following only the Abhidhamma and not the Suttas. This is simply an assumption. Once the Abhidhamma is learned well, one can read any Sutta and understand the majority of it without difficulty. That is the purpose.
In both cases, and at a minimum, both of these two groups of monks (those who break vinaya and those who criticize the tipitaka) should be avoided and food and lodging should not be shared with such monks whether or not sanctions have been imposed.
Does this happen? No. It has not happened as far as anyone can remember within the past one or two hundred years. The problem is that it will cause more problems and an official new sect or an unofficial new sect will be created. Although Ajahn Brahmavamso & Co were “excommunicated” from the Ajahn Chah Thai Forest Tradition more than 10 years ago for ordaining bhikkhunis, they were not officially put on probation or expelled from “Theravada Sangha”. This unofficial exclusion was probably intentional by design. You can verify that Bodhinyana and other Ajahn Brahmavamso monasteries are not listed in https://forestsangha.org
It is not Theravadan to reject the Abhidhamma just as much as it is not Theravadan to reject the rules regarding money and eating at the wrong times, as well as any of the 227 rules with commentary extended explanations. However, the monks who are “born” Theravada are still Theravada. This is similar to Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the USA”. If you are born in the USA, you are an American. You can be a Socialist and still keep your citizenship. Only if you officially renounce your citizenship in a proper way, or take an oath to an opposing government, etc, do you lose that status. The same is true with Theravada Monks. A Theravada monk is a Theravada monk until he renounces, takes an oath to a new sect, or until the vinaya becomes so relaxed that the ordinations are considered invalid. This happens with poorly created Simas, and ordinations not done in the Pali language. This is the reason why Mahayana is considered entirely “separate” by most Theravada monks, except those who believe in and perform bhikkhuni ordinations and some others. I’m quite sure the bhikkhu ordinations are done properly and in Pali at Bodhinyana and other similar sanghas which oppose Classical Theravada in the strictest sense.
The general hope is to keep unity as long as possible. The Dhamma will die and it was predicted that the Abhidhamma, specifically the Patthana will disappear first. That is why the Patthana is routinely chanted in Myanmar. In the end, monks can change their ways. Some monks may decide to follow vinaya after decades of breaking it. They should be welcomed back without the need to ordain again. Ajahn Chah used money for a good portion of his monk life. Venerable Pa-Auk Sayadaw also used money until shortly after he finished his Dhammacariya exams. Some Abhidhamma opposing monks are later able concentrate their minds to where they can know and see the Abhidhamma directly. There is one monk who could only attain jhana for 20 minutes. In his past life, he rejected the Abhidhamma.
As for novice monks and lay people. No. They are not Theravadan if they reject the Abhidhamma or the Commentaries. These non-bhikkhus (unordained) do not have the privilege of rejecting the Abhidhamma and remaining as part of Theravada. Pabbajja is very easy to lose and that is why it is reaffirmed weekly and often the moment before one’s higher ordination.
How did these rejections spread? This goes back to first English translations by PTS in which Mrs. Rhys Davids called the Dhammasangani “The valley of dry bones.” It also goes back to the pioneer monks of the Island Forest Hermitage. Bhikkhu Bodhi, in his MN1 YouTube talk, talks about a monk in Sri Lanka who thought he was an Anagami. But when he told him he was not, he would get angry (which is impossible if he really attained it). These people were left on their own and wrote what they guessed and hypothesized rather than what they learned from supervised teachers first and then later saw for themselves as true. I’m not sure if this is the same monk, but venerable Ñāṇavīra was rumoured to be attained Nibbana to the 2nd or 3rd Fruition. He is considered the “Father” of rejecting the commentaries and Abhidhamma. His book called, “Clearing The Path” is the bible for monks who reject traditional Theravada. This monk ended up committing suicide. Go ahead and Google his life.
Unfortunately, it is like African Americans portrayed in the news. The white new casters report about black people committing crimes while reducing the coverage of white people doing the same. There has definitely been a “change in color” for the reporters and reporting in past two years. In the same way, when criticism of the commentaries shows up in the footnotes, they are usually only speaking of a small percentage of what they reject. Ajahn Sujato who might be assumed to be a strong critic of the commentaries, translates many of the words in the Suttas with the commentary explanations in context. Did you know that? The problem is that uneducated people usually are quick to judge.
Those who reject the Commentaries and Abhidhamma often criticize and oppose each other as spreading wrong Dhamma. There are many flavors of Dhamma. Those who follow the Abhidhamma and Commentaries are still in the vast majority and unified and in the Dhamma, even in Thailand where you would least expect it. Just like the news, the Dhamma channels you subscribe to may make you believe something is mainstream when it really isn’t.
Back to my very first sentence:
Most monks (more than 95%) do not follow proper monk rules nor do they regularly meditate. Did you know that? The true reality depends on the Dhamma Channels you choose.
SuttaCentral is mixed bag of Dharma and not a pure Theravada group.
Another reason why i didn’t think it was a fitting analogy is that the country was established before Springsteen and not with Springsteen as it’s basis.
It is not clear to me that there ever was a Theravada without Abhidhamma. I think therefore that unlike the Commentary Abhidhamma is canonical.
