First, there is no Theravada without the Abhidhammapitaka, unless you are a bhikkhu and therefore a Theravadin by ordination.
Second, the Buddha spoke about 4 types of people: "One who understands immediately, one who understands after detailed explanation, one who needs personal training, and one who merely learns by rote" (AN4.133). So, not everyone needs the Abhidhamma to walk the path successfully, while for others it's a big help.
Third, this is purely speculation on my part: quite of few of those rejecting the Abhidhamma do so, because they like to offer their own interpretation of the suttas.
On the Necessity of the Abhidhamma
Re: On the Necessity of the Abhidhamma
But you do know that the Vinaya allows for the context to be manufactured, for example in the case where the place of discourse is no longer known etc.cappuccino wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 5:05 pmwhy was the context included in the scriptures? because… it's a necessary thingCeisiwr wrote: Abhidhamma is Dhamma in its pure form without any context or personally tailored teachings.
Re: On the Necessity of the Abhidhamma
Not necessarily speculation because there have been instances of pali purists rejecting Abhidhamma who went even as far as also rejecting the authenticity of single particular suttas that did not match their interpretation of the bulk of suttas.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: On the Necessity of the Abhidhamma
I think it's detrimentalSobhana wrote: So, not everyone needs the Abhidhamma to walk the path successfully, while for others it's a big help.
Re: On the Necessity of the Abhidhamma
Excellent point. And the developments can be useful, or not, depending on the background and inclinations of the students.
Given the variety of such developments, I'm always a little skeptical about statements about how "such-and-such is obvious from the suttas (and/or Canonical Abhidhamma)". That, of course, is also what modern commentators who disagree with the Theravada interpretation say about their interpretations.
On the other hand, there is an argument that the Theravada school has preserved a coherent and well-documented system, so that may be as good a raft as any...
Mike
Re: On the Necessity of the Abhidhamma
Not necessarily. Sometimes suttas say just what they say, while modern interpretators simply show this fact, not adding their own personal concepts. And all dubious interpretations come from those who add something their own to this, something that is not in the suttas. Like, for example, doctrine of momentariness is not something that is there in the suttas, but just an intepretation that "it could be this way". Path of Bodhisattva is not something that is there in the suttas, but again, an intepretation that such way could exist. Etc etc.Given the variety of such developments, I'm always a little skeptical about statements about how "such-and-such is obvious from the suttas (and/or Canonical Abhidhamma)". That, of course, is also what modern commentators who disagree with the Theravada interpretation say about their interpretations.
My personal position is that all that is there in the suttas - all this information - is more than enough for, at the very least, attaining stream-entry. While Buddha and his lifetime monks could preserve more varied material, they preserved too much similar material on one and the same topic. These topics, which do not require additional interpretations to understand, is the core, most important Dhamma from their point of view.
Re: On the Necessity of the Abhidhamma
Depends how terrified one is of the Abhidhammikas. Seriously.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 5:40 amThe question is, to Zom's point above, whilst all sects have and accept the original suttas in some form, only one tradition has this Abhidhamma, so are we willing to accept our tradition's own self-validation and affirmation of its own self-penned works?
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: On the Necessity of the Abhidhamma
That's a history-specific argument. We, now, are not living in the time of the Buddha, we do not have a Buddha living among us.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: On the Necessity of the Abhidhamma
This doesn't mean suttas no longer work and we need some additional Dhamma.That's a history-specific argument. We, now, are not living in the time of the Buddha, we do not have a Buddha living among us.
Re: On the Necessity of the Abhidhamma
It’s not additional.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: On the Necessity of the Abhidhamma
Greetings Robert,
But despite being later... it does appear to be the first time that there were enough bhikkhus to say, "hey, I really think we should be going back to what the Buddha actually taught", to constitute a proper fracturing of the community. Usually I imagine it would be like it is in the present day where those interested in the Sutta and Vinaya and not interested in the Abhidhamma, can set it aside and place their focus elsewhere, rather than create a whole "new" tradition. Since doctrinal differences rarely manifest outwardly in any clear way, people can privately believe, practice and pursue whatever they want, without their views becoming a public endeavour.
Thus, it's not just 20th century scholars who are the first to question the validity and necessity of post-Buddha works such as the Abhidhamma.
Specific to your question, I'm not sure what the consensus on Sautrantika beliefs is, but I note that you would have to see it in the context of what it was rejecting and contesting. The Sarvastivada that it broke from thought that "everything exists, in the past, present and future". (Compare with Classical Theravada which thought that "things exist and then do not exist with great rapidity".)
Metta,
Paul.
Actually, it's one of the later ones. I guess you need to see the danger of going down a certain path before you think...
But despite being later... it does appear to be the first time that there were enough bhikkhus to say, "hey, I really think we should be going back to what the Buddha actually taught", to constitute a proper fracturing of the community. Usually I imagine it would be like it is in the present day where those interested in the Sutta and Vinaya and not interested in the Abhidhamma, can set it aside and place their focus elsewhere, rather than create a whole "new" tradition. Since doctrinal differences rarely manifest outwardly in any clear way, people can privately believe, practice and pursue whatever they want, without their views becoming a public endeavour.
Thus, it's not just 20th century scholars who are the first to question the validity and necessity of post-Buddha works such as the Abhidhamma.
Specific to your question, I'm not sure what the consensus on Sautrantika beliefs is, but I note that you would have to see it in the context of what it was rejecting and contesting. The Sarvastivada that it broke from thought that "everything exists, in the past, present and future". (Compare with Classical Theravada which thought that "things exist and then do not exist with great rapidity".)
... and I would agree with the Sautrāntika on this point for reasons stated elsewhere on the forum over the past decade.The Sarvāstivādin abhidharma also broke down human experience in terms of a variety of underlying phenomena (a view similar to that held by the modern Theravadin abhidhamma); the Sautrāntika believed that experience could not be differentiated in this manner.
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: On the Necessity of the Abhidhamma
If the question of authenticity then perhaps not . Example of theories that Buddha didnt teach is momentariness , meditation on dissecting or analysing rupa kalapa (sub atomic particle) , three existence dhammas concept , space being an unconditioned element , "personhood" existence etc . All of these are not the actual dependent arising teachings where it appear to be not of what the Buddha taught . Not only that , but the redefinition of many terms (eg . namarupa) which has been added to the suttas .
But if ask whether if it is useful then perhaps somehow it does .
○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○
But if ask whether if it is useful then perhaps somehow it does .
○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○
Last edited by sentinel on Tue Jul 21, 2020 4:30 am, edited 2 times in total.
You always gain by giving
-
- Posts: 1210
- Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:56 am
- Location: Sri Lanka
Re: On the Necessity of the Abhidhamma
This is what scholar/linguists don't seem to get
atthamaññāya dhammamaññāya dhammānudhammappaṭipanno ca hoti;
Instead of comparing attha and dhamma they compare language and radiocarbon date ola leafs. I guess they are also right according to their own methods.
Wish you all success in all your endeavours. Goodbye!
Re: On the Necessity of the Abhidhamma
I don't know if it's additional Dhamma. But we might very well need something to bridge the historic and socio-cultural gap. On principle, traditions/lineages and doctrinal manuals try to bridge this gap.
Even the people who claim to rely just on the suttas, are actually implicitly relying on traditions/lineages and doctrinal manuals, they just do so implicitly and without acknowledging them. Even just using a Pali dictionary is a form of such reliance. One might as well acknowledge it.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: On the Necessity of the Abhidhamma
Are you talking about The Abhidhamma or are you talking about an abhidhamma? The title and the OP seem to be talking about The Abhidhamma which is a particular text and is one of the three baskets of the tipitaka I think. If The Abhidhamma is Necessary then that would mean that before it was composed that no one had achieved enlightnment (except for perhaps the budda) because a necessary thing did not yet exist.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 2:47 pm chownah
What we find in the suttas would have been taught in greater detail by the Buddha and his immediate disciples.I haven't read much of this discussion but I'll comment anyway: If the abhidhamma is necessary then what does this say for the practices of ALL those many many people who lived before the abhidhamma was formulated and made available for study? Were there no arahants before the abhidhamma?
chownah