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.
Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
Abhidhamma is not authoritative because:
1. Not spoken by Buddha
2. Contradicts suttas
A inquiring person would ask: "How did Abhidhamma become part of scripture?" "Who had the power to include it in scripture?"
1. Not spoken by Buddha
2. Contradicts suttas
A inquiring person would ask: "How did Abhidhamma become part of scripture?" "Who had the power to include it in scripture?"
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
- JamesTheGiant
- Posts: 2147
- Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 8:41 am
- Location: New Zealand
Re: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
Do you mean is it necessary to accept Abhidhamma as the literal secret teaching
to the gods and Sariputta, from the Buddha's own mouth?
Or as a teaching which originated as elaboration and interpretation of the suttas, a few hundred years after the Buddha passed away?
to the gods and Sariputta, from the Buddha's own mouth?
Or as a teaching which originated as elaboration and interpretation of the suttas, a few hundred years after the Buddha passed away?
Re: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
The question is what is the technical description of Theravada irrespective of the validity of Abhidhamma.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
I don't know who spoke Abhidhamma but I do not agree on it contradicts Sutta.
Again this is off-topic.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
Greetings Sarath,
I would think that a Theravadin should value the Buddha's word over anyone else, but then, some seem to prefer sectarian "literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples" to the Buddha's teaching.
What are you going to do about it?
Metta,
Paul.
Actually, no... it's not.
I would think that a Theravadin should value the Buddha's word over anyone else, but then, some seem to prefer sectarian "literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples" to the Buddha's teaching.
What are you going to do about it?
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: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
My question is what is the definition of Theravada.
Please stay on the topic.
Please stay on the topic.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
Greetings,
So if you "accept Abhidhamma", you don't really accept the Suttas, do you?
Metta,
Paul.
You're missing the point. The Suttas themselves tell us to disregard the Abhidhamma - the Simsapa Sutta, the Ani Sutta, the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, the Abhasita Sutta etc. all do.
So if you "accept Abhidhamma", you don't really accept the Suttas, do you?
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: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
Did I ask such a difficult question here?
If Abhidhamma is not part of the teaching would that be considered Theravada?
If Abhidhamma is not part of the teaching would that be considered Theravada?
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
There are historical examples of some early Theravadins rejecting Abhidhamma, who were still considered Theravadins by others.
But I have no idea from where to quote info about it.
But I have no idea from where to quote info about it.
Re: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
Thanks, I am not concern about the history.
What are we called Theravada today and whether it is necessary for Abhidhamma to be part of it?
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
See section 3.2.3 of the paper:
DIVERGENT DOCTRINAL INTERPRETATIONS ON THE NATURE OF MIND AND MATTER IN THERAVĀDA ABHIDHAMMA: A STUDY MAINLY BASED ON THE PĀLI AND SIṂHALA BUDDHIST EXEGETICAL LITERATURE
PILASSE CHANDARATANA
https://hub.hku.hk/bitstream/10722/1823 ... llText.pdf (requires name and e-mail)
Re: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
I can't imagine that there is none in this Theravada Forum who knows what Theravada means!
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
Then should someone who accepts Abhidhamma be considered outside Theravada.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:46 am Greetings,
You're missing the point. The Suttas themselves tell us to disregard the Abhidhamma - the Simsapa Sutta, the Ani Sutta, the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, the Abhasita Sutta etc. all do.
So if you "accept Abhidhamma", you don't really accept the Suttas, do you?
Metta,
Paul.
Re: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
Thera = elder
Vada = school
So it was a sectarian school .
By the time this name appear it became a sub school of the main three . Pre sectarian do not have school name yet . Traditionally Theravada today are regards synonym with the first Theravada school when the splitting happened . However , abhidhamma pitaka came much later after the splitting happening into three main schools . Therefore , modern Theravada and the earliest ancient Theravada are not the same . Abhidhamma do have their merits but it does more confusions to us then clarity that it could bring us . Why then attach yourself to name and label ? What you wants is properly understanding of the dhamma .
What one should consider and concern , is , are you 《outside of the dhamma-vada》!
Vada = school
So it was a sectarian school .
By the time this name appear it became a sub school of the main three . Pre sectarian do not have school name yet . Traditionally Theravada today are regards synonym with the first Theravada school when the splitting happened . However , abhidhamma pitaka came much later after the splitting happening into three main schools . Therefore , modern Theravada and the earliest ancient Theravada are not the same . Abhidhamma do have their merits but it does more confusions to us then clarity that it could bring us . Why then attach yourself to name and label ? What you wants is properly understanding of the dhamma .
What one should consider and concern , is , are you 《outside of the dhamma-vada》!
No bashing No gossiping