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

[asahi]

Please give the source reference.

https://suttacentral.net/vb1/en/thittila

[SarathW]

Please give the source reference.

https://suttacentral.net/vb1/en/thittila

What simply saying here is that the internal and external phenomena are a result of ignorance.
ie: The thought internal and external is a result of ignorance.
Once you know that you enter the Path.

[mikenz66]

Well, personally, I like the various conversations about how to approach the Dhamma,
from ancient and modern commentators. Why the need to pidgeon-hole them? There is a lot to learn in the path of letting go of greed, hatred, and delusion.

Agree.
This is exactly the point of this thread.
In my opinion, monks such as Ajahan Braham and Ven. Sujato is trying to Pidgeon-hole Abhidhamma followers.

I don't agree. If you listen to talks by people such as Ven Sujato, Ven Analayo, etc, they have some thoughtful and respectful things to say about various layers of texts. Have you listened to Ven Sujato's talks on "The Visuddhimagga for Sutta Lovers?".

Of course, if you read or listen to more casual conversations, it's always possible to interpret "soundbites" as dismissive, as in the case of some of your posts!

etc.
What I see is that Abhidhamma has become a threat to this linage as it negate the belief of this tradition.

Mike

[asahi]

Please give the source reference.

https://suttacentral.net/vb1/en/thittila

What simply saying here is that the internal and external phenomena are a result of ignorance.
ie: The thought internal and external is a result of ignorance.
Once you know that you enter the Path.

No , that just your "imagine interpretation" .
Where is the word " thought" can be found per the quote ?
With regards to the quote the internal external are not different per the contents other than the words internal external . Essentially you cant see what difference for both internal form and external form are .

[SarathW]

Well, personally, I like the various conversations about how to approach the Dhamma,
from ancient and modern commentators. Why the need to pidgeon-hole them? There is a lot to learn in the path of letting go of greed, hatred, and delusion.

Agree.
This is exactly the point of this thread.
In my opinion, monks such as Ajahan Braham and Ven. Sujato is trying to Pidgeon-hole Abhidhamma followers.

I don't agree. If you listen to talks by people such as Ven Sujato, Ven Analayo, etc, they have some thoughtful and respectful things to say about various layers of texts. Have you listened to Ven Sujato's talks on "The Visuddhimagga for Sutta Lovers?".

Of course, if you read or listen to more casual conversations, it's always possible to interpret "soundbites" as dismissive, as in the case of some of your posts!

etc.
What I see is that Abhidhamma has become a threat to this linage as it negate the belief of this tradition.

Mike

Abhidhamma was not taught by the Buddha

[BrokenBones]

I assume the missing word is 'read'.

Yes thanks.

Isn't it simply that a lot of people see the suttas as complete and well suited to actually walking the path and see no use in endless lists

These are also in the suttas.

Vedic atoms,

This shows that you don’t know what it is you are criticising.

pretty kasinas

These are in the suttas.

and scholarly endeavour that is so convoluted it makes like the oozlum.

What Ven. Buddhaghosa did is not much different from what Thanissaro does. What most well known monks do. It’s all commentary. You see a convoluted mess, I see clarity. And of course, there is more Dhamma in Ven. Buddhaghosa than what is found in some of the rambling and fallacious idiosyncratic interpretations that pass for “Dhamma” on this forum by some members.

Once again, you haven’t the foggiest idea what you are talking about. Are you new to the Dhamma perhaps?

As far as I am aware; the suttas are relatively intact and their authenticity can be more or less verified with Chinese versions and versions found from now defunct schools... regardless of 'proofs'... their sublime authenticity shines through.

Since there were at least 18... maybe as many as 25 different schools of Buddhism at one time... each with their own unique Abhidhamma (this seems to be a major reason for the splits)... why is there so much certainty that the Theravada version is the one and true version the Buddha taught to Sariputta and kept secret at the First Council only to emerge a few centuries later like some Tibetan Terma?

The argument I hear incessantly is that... 'oh, you have no respect for the ancient commentaries and Abhidhamma... you only listen to modern monks who are no better than they should be'.

Drivel.

I listen to modern monks and compare it with the suttas... now widely available to the masses... unlike in the past where people relied 100% on the monks for what the Buddha did or did not teach.

What Buddhaghosa did was ensure centuries of confusion and a lessening of the Buddha's Dhamma... something the Buddha predicted.

As for being a 'newbie'... a bit beneath you... attack my 'idiosyncratic' views all you like... but play nice.

[Dhammanando]

Lets take an example : essentially how both below quote of internal external are differents ?

Therein what is internal form? That form which, for this or that being, is personal, self-referable, one’s own, individual and is grasped (by craving and false view), (i.e.) the four great essentials and the material qualities derived from the four great essentials. This is called internal form.

Therein what is external form? That form which, for this or that other being, for other persons, is personal, self-referable, one’s own, individual and is grasped, (i.e.) the four great essentials and the material qualities derived from the four great essentials. This is called external form.

The difference lies in the word "other" in the definition of external rūpa. The rūpas that you take to be yours are internal for you, while the rūpas that others take to be theirs are internal for them and external for you.

What does personal, self-referable, one’s own, individual meant ?

Just a list of synonyms meaning "subjective".

[asahi]

The difference lies in the word "other" in the definition of external rūpa. The rūpas that you take to be yours are internal for you, while the rūpas that others take to be theirs are internal for them and external for you.

Iyo this is exactly the same with what Buddha said in the other suttas ?
And in abhidhamma the internal rupas and external rupas are what ? In what sense it is called internal such as inside the physical body ?

[SarathW]

The difference lies in the word "other" in the definition of external rūpa. The rūpas that you take to be yours are internal for you, while the rūpas that others take to be theirs are internal for them and external for you.

Iyo this is exactly the same with what Buddha said in the other suttas ?
And in abhidhamma the internal rupas and external rupas are what ? In what sense it is called internal such as inside the physical body ?

Say if you have a glass of water in your hand. The water is external
Say you drink the water. Then it is internal.
If the water in the river it is external.
If it is (glass of water from the river) in your hand it is internal because it is yours.
This internal and external is a result of ignorance.

[Ceisiwr]

As for being a 'newbie'... a bit beneath you... attack my 'idiosyncratic' views all you like... but play nice.

It wasn’t a criticism. I was just curious to see where you are at. I think I understand your position now. I used to be you.

[Spiny Norman]

Lets take an example : essentially how both below quote of internal external are differents ?

Therein what is internal form? That form which, for this or that being, is personal, self-referable, one’s own, individual and is grasped (by craving and false view), (i.e.) the four great essentials and the material qualities derived from the four great essentials. This is called internal form.

Therein what is external form? That form which, for this or that other being, for other persons, is personal, self-referable, one’s own, individual and is grasped, (i.e.) the four great essentials and the material qualities derived from the four great essentials. This is called external form.

The difference lies in the word "other" in the definition of external rūpa. The rūpas that you take to be yours are internal for you, while the rūpas that others take to be theirs are internal for them and external for you.

What does personal, self-referable, one’s own, individual meant ?

Just a list of synonyms meaning "subjective".

Though note that the examples of internal elements given in MN140 are all inside the body. So for example, "my house", "my car" and "my garden" would be external elements, and not internal elements.
This means that both internal and external elements can be appropriated as mine. But when seen clearly, both are just elements. Also see MN1.

https://suttacentral.net/mn140/en/sujato

[BrokenBones]

As for being a 'newbie'... a bit beneath you... attack my 'idiosyncratic' views all you like... but play nice.

It wasn’t a criticism. I was just curious to see where you are at. I think I understand your position now. I used to be you.

So you're the one I keep getting bailiff letters for.

Of course it was a criticism and your follow up is patronising.

[Spiny Norman]

Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma a part of the doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
What if a particular Buddhist sect does not accept Abhidhamma as authoritative and reject accepting or teaching it.

No. "Theravada" is a broad designation, like "Mahayana".
Next question?

[Coëmgenu]

Is it, though? Is it a broad designation, or is that something that Westerners who accidentally reinvent it claim? It is actually a narrow designation applying to only some of the people who "self-identify" as Theravada?

I have heard gossip, gossip that if I were carefuller I would put more effort into citing and substantiating (instead I opt to do that after I've made the claim itself, "smart," he said with sarcasm), that in the 1980s the Supreme Patriarch of Thailand (either Venerables Jinavajiralongkorn or Vajirañāṇasaṃvara -- I know not which) allegedly published a text explaining how Nibbana is "the true self" that the Buddha never rejected. I've never read this supposed text. I don't even know if it actually existed. I know that supposedly it was published "in the 80s" in the Thai language.

If such a thing were true, it would mean that there is no real "institutional" Thai Buddhism IMO. That's an "if."

Now I'll have to go back and find where the gossip I heard actually was.

[Spiny Norman]

Is it, though? Is it a broad designation, or is that something that Westerners who accidentally reinvent it claim? It is actually a narrow designation applying to only some of the people who "self-identify" as Theravada?

I think people have been reinventing since the Buddha's time. Continuous evolution and diversification.