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

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
SarathW
Posts: 16168
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

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

Post by SarathW »

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.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 11108
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

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

Post by DooDoot »

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?" :shrug:
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
User avatar
JamesTheGiant
Posts: 1456
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?

Post by JamesTheGiant »

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?
SarathW
Posts: 16168
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

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

Post by SarathW »

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”
SarathW
Posts: 16168
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

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

Post by SarathW »

DooDoot wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:43 am 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?" :shrug:
I don't know who spoke Abhidhamma but I do not agree on it contradicts Sutta.
Again this is off-topic.
:focus:
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 24477
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?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Sarath,
SarathW wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:20 am I don't know who spoke Abhidhamma but I do not agree on it contradicts Sutta.
Again this is off-topic.
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? :shrug:

Metta,
Paul. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view?" (SN 5.10)

"Overcome the liar by truth." (Dhp 223)
SarathW
Posts: 16168
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

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

Post by SarathW »

My question is what is the definition of Theravada.
Please stay on the topic.
:tongue:
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 24477
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?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
SarathW wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:44 am My question is what is the definition of Theravada.
Please stay on the topic.
:tongue:
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. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view?" (SN 5.10)

"Overcome the liar by truth." (Dhp 223)
SarathW
Posts: 16168
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

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

Post by SarathW »

Did I ask such a difficult question here?
If Abhidhamma is not part of the teaching would that be considered Theravada?
:mrgreen:
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Dweller
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2021 9:14 pm

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

Post by Dweller »

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.
SarathW
Posts: 16168
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

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

Post by SarathW »

Dweller wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:48 am 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.
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”
User avatar
Assaji
Posts: 1931
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm

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

Post by Assaji »

Dweller wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:48 am 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.
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)
SarathW
Posts: 16168
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

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

Post by SarathW »

I can't imagine that there is none in this Theravada Forum who knows what Theravada means!
:rolleye:
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 4277
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

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

Post by robertk »

retrofuturist wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:46 am Greetings,
SarathW wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:44 am My question is what is the definition of Theravada.
Please stay on the topic.
:tongue:
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. :)
Then should someone who accepts Abhidhamma be considered outside Theravada.
asahi
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

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

Post by asahi »

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》!

:namaste:
Post Reply