Does the Abidhamma speak about the different realms?

[mikenz66]

Hi Retro,

Since we already discussed those CMA quotes I guess you didn't find any of the offered clarifications from various members useful.

Perhaps you could clarify what exactly you find difficult to reconcile with your understanding of Dhamma and we could discuss that. Obviously I can't the relevance of the mind-only material.

Does you key objection involve the concept that kamma contributes to constructing the world?

Mike

[cooran]

Hello Retro,

I'd welcome any quotes complying with this rule: "Posts should also include support from a reference, a citation (Tipitaka, commentarial, or from a later work from an author representative of the Classical point-of-view)".

I do not believe Wikipedia fulfils these conditions.

with metta
Chris

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

It's not even really an objection per se... it's just that the wording used by Bhikkhu Bodhi didn't seem to have parallels with any Sutta or Abhidhammic material I had read to date, that's all. As I said, I was surprised. It's been suitably clarified by yourself, Robert and possibly others that what Bhikkhu Bodhi says is reflective of the Mahavihara tradition, and that's all I was seeking to know. Since that's authorative in the context of this sub-forum, I'm content to leave it at that.

Metta,
Retro.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Chris,

I'd welcome any quotes complying with this rule: "Posts should also include support from a reference, a citation (Tipitaka, commentarial, or from a later work from an author representative of the Classical point-of-view)".

If we take that to the letter, then a comparative analysis of Abhidhamma with Yogacara (or anything for that matter) in this sub-forum would be impossible. If we took that to the letter then your post would be off-topic too.

If however we take that in the spirit it was constructed, then anything someone is claiming as true in the Dhamma need be referenced in such a way.

However I was not putting Yogacara forward though as truth, fact, or as representative of Mahavihara... I put it forward as an object of comparison, with a view to investigating, clarifying and getting a better appreciation of the Mahavihara view. To that extent, I'm surprised at the objection, but will stop here.

Metta,
Retro.

[mikenz66]

Hi Retro,

If we take that to the letter, then a comparative analysis of Abhidhamma with Yogacara (or anything for that matter) in this sub-forum would be impossible.

I didn't think that comparative analysis was on-topic in the Classical Theravada sub-forums:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=373" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

These forums are for the benefit of those members who wish to develop a deeper understanding of these texts and are not for the challenging of the Abhidhamma and/or Theravada commentarial literature.

In this context I don't understand why it is necessary to make inflammatory statements about Bhikkhu Bodhi and/or the Theravada such as:

Is the Buddha saying Bhikkhu Bodhi does not possess Right View?

Again, I don't know whether this is just a clumsy use of words, but it sounds like this is falling into the error committed by Sati the Fisherman's Son...

I'm just genuinely shocked by some of what I'm reading there from Bhikkhu Bodhi and want to know whether it is Mahavihara compliant. Much of it reads like things I'd expect from the Tibetan religions, that's all.

Mike

[kc2dpt]

As often as I do have objections to retrofuturist's posts, I personally feel in this case he wasn't challenging Classical Theravada but rather expressing confusion and asking for help. That's the purpose of these forums, isn't it?

As for the quotes retro presented, I see nothing incompatible. Anyone who is the least bit familiar with Ven. Bodhi's teachings knows he doesn't teach an atman; his lectures on the subject are very explicit and clear. It is simply that not everyone is as careful as retro with their vocabulary when discussing consciousness. It has happened on this forum before that retro takes a poster's comment or question on an unrelated topic and he turns into a discussion of atman; now he's doing it to Ven. Bodhi. It's annoying but I don't think it's inappropriate.

"Hey, here's this supposedly Theravadin teacher and he's saying something that to me doesn't seem Theravadin. Can someone explain it to me?" Nothing wrong with that, IMHO.

[kc2dpt]

I don't understand why it is necessary to make inflammatory statements about Bhikkhu Bodhi and/or the Theravada such as:

Is the Buddha saying Bhikkhu Bodhi does not possess Right View?

I agree this is needlessly disrespectful and perhaps inflammatory. Perhaps it would have been better stated "This statement by Ven. Bodhi seems to evince wrong view as defined by the Buddha here... Could someone explain what I'm missing?"

[mikenz66]

Hi Peter,

Perhaps it would have been better stated "This statement by Ven. Bodhi seems to evince wrong view as defined by the Buddha here... Could someone explain what I'm missing?"

I agree. In fact, in my opinion, this is the way all questions regarding Dhamma should be expressed.

Mike

[pt1]

As for examples... these...
...read (to me at least) like the citta-mātra philosophy of the Yogacara school.

Hi retro, I remember when I first opened ACMA I was pretty hostile towards abhidhamma and commentaries, so it was pretty easy to find fault with almost every sentence. Of course, that didn't help me much in understanding the book on its own terms. Abhidhamma, and its commentaries in turn, both have a specific use of language that takes a bit of getting used to in order to understand the terms as they were really meant to be understood. One can find fault with anything - even the suttas, e.g. every time the Buddha uses "self", one can cry out - "hey, he's advocating eternalism!" But of course, this is not so, as his usage of "self" must be considered in the context of conditionality and tilakkhana. Reading anything else into it would be to take it outside of the context. It's a similar picture with abhi and comm - everything should be considered in terms of conditionality and tilakkhana.

Regarding "mind-only" confusion, consider the objects of the five senses - they are not said to be a product of the mind. So, in such case, it can't really be argued that abhidhamma proposes that everything is mind-made. Of course, in such case one can then wonder - "ok, so do objects of the five senses exist externally or not?" But, this question should also be considered in terms of conditionality and tilakkhana - so if it's said that objects do exist in the external world, it's only said so in the context of conditionality and tilakkhana, so there's nothing out there that exists as an eternal, or some such, thing.

Best wishes

[kc2dpt]

Perhaps it would have been better stated "This statement by Ven. Bodhi seems to evince wrong view as defined by the Buddha here... Could someone explain what I'm missing?"

I agree. In fact, in my opinion, this is the way all questions regarding Dhamma should be expressed.

"The teaching of karma seems to contradict the teaching on anatta. Could someone explain what I'm missing?"
"The teaching of the first precept seems to imply we should all be vegetarians. Could someone explain what I'm missing?"
"The teachings on sensual pleasures seem to imply I'm a bad Buddhist if I don't give up ice cream, movies, and all my friends. Could someone explain what I'm missing?"

There, I think I've covered about 90% of all Buddhist forum threads.

[Ben]

Well done, Peter!
Now we can all get back to what's really important.
Metta

Ben