Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?

[Coëmgenu]

2. The Dhamma is simple...

I think that this is the fatal flaw of Theravada modernism and reinvention, and I would be a Theravada modernist and reinventor myself were it not for not being a Theravadin -- this idea that the Dhamma is "simple" and can be deduced and intuited out of the suttas because the Buddha leaves simple instructions that anyone can follow. I do not believe that the Dhamma can be deduced and intuited out of the suttas at all if they are read in a vaccuum, especially if they are read with a compromised refuge in the three jewels that doesn't consider bhikkhus to be bhikkhus unless they are on the twenty-third or whatever bhumi. Reading suttas alone in your room, you might as well read Journey to the West. Suttas have zero, perhaps less than zero (i.e. are actively harmful to your spiritual growth), effectiveness if they are not accompanied by the threefold training. Dunning-Krugers read these suttas and say "I have the truth now," because, to them, the Dharma is a collection of trivia that constitutes "right view" that keeps them from hell. This is spiritual harm they have done themselves by reading the suttas wrong. Because these personalized interpretations become so important to the holders of them (after all, it's going to prevent them from going to hell!), they defend them to the death and double-down on them and refuse to see obvious glaring flaws in their thinking. "How can you not agree with me? Dependent origination is so simple! My understanding is so simple! I am so simple!"

"Don't say that, Ananda," the Buddha said when Venerable Ananda first committed to this trajectory of thought.

[waryoffolly]

2. The Dhamma is simple...

I think that this is the fatal flaw of Theravada modernism and reinvention, and I would be a Theravada modernist and reinventor myself were it not for not being a Theravadin -- this idea that the Dhamma is "simple" and can be deduced and intuited out of the suttas because the Buddha leaves simple instructions that anyone can follow. I do not believe that the Dhamma can be deduced and intuited out of the suttas at all if they are read in a vaccuum, especially if they are read with a compromised refuge in the three jewels. Reading suttas alone in your room, you might as well read Journey to the West. Suttas have zero, perhaps less than zero (i.e. are actively harmful to your spiritual growth), effectiveness if they are not accompanied by the threefold training. Dunning-Krugers read these suttas and say "I have the truth now," because, to them, the Dharma is a collection of trivia that constitutes "right view" that keeps them from hell. Because these personalized interpretations become to important to the holders of them (after all, it's going to prevent them from going to hell!), they defend them to the death.

"Don't say that, Ananda," the Buddha said when Venerable Ananda first committed to this trajectory of thought.

Just to be clear you misquoted me a bit. I said “simplex” not “simple”. Simple in underlying principles, extremely complex in practice. The entirety of dhamma can be contained in a few lines of poetry (“simple in underlying principles”), but to understand in detail and in practice what those few lines of poetry mean is difficult (“extremely complex in practice”).

Anyways I think I agree with the general ideas in your post. Best to rely on all three refuges rather than just two. Of course you have to be discerning in determining the sangha you take refuge in, but there are many good options around today I’d say.

[Coëmgenu]

It was a worse misquote than that. The entire quotation was misattributed. It is fixed now.

Simple in underlying principles, extremely complex in practice. The entirety of dhamma can be contained in a few lines of poetry (“simple in underlying principles”), but to understand in detail and in practice what those few lines of poetry mean is difficult (“extremely complex in practice”).

Well, I would actually disagree here too. Explain to me what a sankhara is, explaining multiple of its senses, in simple language that a eight-year-old with no special Buddhist terminology or Buddhist education, in less than 100 words, if it is so simple in underlying principles (you don't actually have to do this and, if you do, it would best be in a new thread). Sankharas are an example of something I would consider "underlying principles" to the Dhamma, and I don't think they are particularly simple. So there's multiples sides to all of this, at least mine and yours, and I'm sure more others that we can't even imagine, whether that's because of incoherency on their end or non-comprehension on ours.

[waryoffolly]

It was a worse misquote than that. The entire quotation was misattributed. It is fixed now.

Simple in underlying principles, extremely complex in practice. The entirety of dhamma can be contained in a few lines of poetry (“simple in underlying principles”), but to understand in detail and in practice what those few lines of poetry mean is difficult (“extremely complex in practice”).

Well, I would actually disagree here too. Explain to me what a sankhara is, explaining multiple of its senses, in simple language that a eight-year-old with no special Buddhist terminology or Buddhist education, in less than 100 words, if it is so simple in underlying principles (you don't actually have to do this and, if you do, it would best be in a new thread). Sankharas are an example of something I would consider "underlying principles" to the Dhamma, and I don't think they are particularly simple. So there's multiples sides to all of this.

I do wonder if part of the problem is that said 8 year old only speaks English . Probably there are common complex words in English that English speaking children intuitively understand. There are child-arahants in the canon right? Anyways, I think we’re veering off topic a bit.

[Dhammavamsa]

This thread is a load of old bollocks.
Call yourself what you feel happy with, and mind your own business.

Not a bad suggestion. This debate is a bit silly. I am also a bit silly for getting involved at all with it .

Agreed. Debating here won't do us all good.
In fact, Bhikkhu Bodhi already done the good deed on this matter.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... ZRBzQSdLHG

For me, it is already case-closed... will back to do Pariyatti, Patipatti, and Pativedha.

[Coëmgenu]

It's sort-of related. If the Dhamma(vinaya) itself is self-evidently and objectively utterly completely contained in the Pali suttas, then the Abhidhamma is completely superfluous, which is actually the argument I think several participants here make. They quote things like the quote that says something like "I don't have a closed fist with my teachings," as if "the suttas" are "the teachings of the Buddha." These things are being conflated full-stop by many here, IMO. There seems to be an idea that the Buddha "just speaks" like a Zen Buddhist "just sits" and that his audience heard his Holy Words and were enlightened, just like you can be too when you read the suttas which are verbatim records. That seems to be one of the strands of thought here. And who can blame sutta-literalists for thinking that when after countless suttas there is an account of someone getting enlightened. It is easy to get into thinking that hearing the words themselves had that effect alone when we are missing context because we only read suttas.

I think it's all importing sola scriptura hooey from Western culture and former religions practiced by most Westerners.

[Ceisiwr]

It's sort-of related. If the Dhamma(vinaya) itself is self-evidently and objectively utterly completely contained in the Pali suttas, then the Abhidhamma is completely superfluous, which is actually the argument I think several participants here make. They quote things like the quote that says something like "I don't have a closed fist with my teachings," as if "the suttas" are "the teachings of the Buddha." These things are being conflated full-stop by many here, IMO. There seems to be an idea that the Buddha "just speaks" like a Zen Buddhist "just sits" and that his audience heard his Holy Words and were enlightened, just like you can be too when you read the suttas which are verbatim records. That seems to be one of the strands of thought here. And who can blame sutta-literalists for thinking that when after countless suttas there is an account of someone getting enlightened. It is easy to get into thinking that hearing the words themselves had that effect alone when we are missing context because we only read suttas.

I think it's all importing sola scriptura hooey from Western culture and former religions practiced by most Westerners.

[Coëmgenu]

I think that the "closed fist" quote is the most wrongly-applied. The Buddha had a closed fist toward Vacchagotta once. What it means for him to not have a closed fist is that he has completely disclosed the body of his knowledge to his greatest students. It does not mean that any comtemporary sect's redaction of the Buddha's words are exhaustively encyclopedic with regards to every possible misunderstanding of the Dhamma and every possible idiosyncratic reaction to it that any learner might have thorough all time. "The suttas" are not self-sufficient to guide any person to awakening just be reading them. I don't even think someone could arrive at so much as right view if they were literally just reading suttas. They are not "simple" things that you can work out on your own at the armchair by the fireplace. The "body of liberating knowledge of the Buddha" is not equivalent to "the body of suttas of the Buddha."

I'm sure people will disagree and say things like "You don't think they are simple because you don't get them!" etc., etc.

[mikenz66]

I'm sure people will disagree and say things like "You don't think they are simple because you don't get them!" etc., etc.

Thank you for getting to the heart of the matter with your last few posts.


Mike

[Gwi II]

So my question is can we call Theravada school a Theravada if it does not accept Abhidhamma as genuine teaching by Buddha or his disciples. I have no problem that people can't understand Abhidhamma ... people to understand it.

Those who reject the Abhidhammo*,
their belief is FLAWED. They are not
a Theravāda group.

* especially Kathāvatthu.

They are Buddhists, "flawed Buddhists (in belief)"
Coz ALL BUDDHISTS ARE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT
TIPITAKAS.

[Gwi II]

My concern is the authoritative monks are restricting the right to learn and make up your own mind.

Pls go to Myanmar , 99% are abhidhammist . In case you dont know Pa-Auk Sayadaw with his multitude of affiliate network spreads all over south east asia , japan , thailand , indonesia , usa , uk , china , taiwan and germany . Once i heard a monk was saying , sri lanka monks are consist almost all of abhidhammist .
Btw , even monks are having difficulty in learning abhidhamma , how much more difficults for lay peoples to learn ? Surely you have been learning dhamma for decades and abhidhamma also , whats the fuss then ? Are you saying in near future you wont be allowed to study abhidhamma pitaka ?

From now on, don't study meditation to attain
jhāna because many bhikkhus are not able to
attain jhāna, nowadays. We just pray like other
religions, to Mahābrahmā or to Sakko OR JUST
SLEEP. (Advice from: dvipitakas).

Advive from Gwi: "screenshot".

[justindesilva]

My concern is the authoritative monks are restricting the right to learn and make up your own mind.

Pls go to Myanmar , 99% are abhidhammist . In case you dont know Pa-Auk Sayadaw with his multitude of affiliate network spreads all over south east asia , japan , thailand , indonesia , usa , uk , china , taiwan and germany . Once i heard a monk was saying , sri lanka monks are consist almost all of abhidhammist .
Btw , even monks are having difficulty in learning abhidhamma , how much more difficults for lay peoples to learn ? Surely you have been learning dhamma for decades and abhidhamma also , whats the fuss then ? Are you saying in near future you wont be allowed to study abhidhamma pitaka ?

From now on, don't study meditation to attain
jhāna because many bhikkhus are not able to
attain jhāna, nowadays. We just pray like other
religions, to Mahābrahmā or to Sakko OR JUST
SLEEP. (Advice from: dvipitakas).

Advive from Gwi: "screenshot".

AbAbhidamma and sutra are like the two sides of a coin. Verification of facts in suttas can easily be made and understood with abhidamma . There are coins of various values and one side gives the value (content while other side gives to which country it belongs . If the country is the sutta then value (or content ) is shown by abhidamma .

[Sasha_A]

In agreement with this, here’s a quote I just saw from Ven Analayo that shows a very respectful attitude:

In general terms, it seems to me that conscientious research requires consulting the commentarial tradition. The commentators are considerably closer in time and culture to the early Buddhist period than we are and therefore should not be dismissed out of hand. This also means that the burden of proof, in my view, is with those who wish to propose ideas that are in complete contrast to the exegetical tradition.

He literally says here that he doesn't know whether something he calls truth is actually truth, and that he takes the traditional explanation as truth without any proof, simply because that explanation is older. What is more, if you happens to question his such completely unfounded and gratuitous statement, the burden of proof is on you, but not on him who actually made the statement about truth in the first place.

If this is not sophistry, what is?

[Coëmgenu]

It's not "unfounded." He explained the foundation very clearly. Do you want me to break down the passage for you and explain it to you at length?

[Sasha_A]

It's not "unfounded." He explained the foundation very clearly. Do you want me to break down the passage for you and explain it to you at length?

It's unfounded and gratuitous, not because it lacks a long explanation, but because he takes that explanation as the truth simply because it's older, and not because he knows for himself that it is the truth.