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

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 24509
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: Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:32 am I don't believe that Sutta's are Buddhavacana.
Except that all traditions had the suttas, whether they made strong efforts to preserve them or not.

The same however cannot be said for sectarian doctrines that the traditions composed themselves.

Therefore, your position appears rather extreme and opposed by all sects.

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)
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 1715
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

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

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

robertk wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:24 am
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.
:rofl:

:jumping: :jumping: :jumping:



That seems the grand scheme of some Trojans.
.


🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐

Self ...
  • "an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" :D ~ MN22
SarathW
Posts: 16254
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: Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:24 am
SarathW wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:21 amThis is my point all those monks and their followers who reject Abhidhamma do not have any idea about it.
But i have some idea about it. Much of what i read in Abhidhamma i reject; such as its view on the Four Noble Truths and Dependent Origination.
That is fine as far as you don't wear a robe and ask your followers to reject it because you reject it or you don't understand it.
I can see from the Kathavattu discussion (re Satipathana) that you don't know how to practice Satipathana.
So you reject it and ask your followers to do the same.
The blind leading the blind.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 11162
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 »

SarathW wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:49 am you don't understand it.
I understand it.
SarathW wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:49 amI can see from the Kathavattu discussion (re Satipathana) that you don't know how to practice Satipathana.
I never commented on the Kathavattu discussion (re Satipathana) about how to practice Satipathana.

:focus:
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
DooDoot
Posts: 11162
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 »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:44 am
:jumping: :jumping: :jumping:



That seems the grand scheme of some Trojans.
I doubt there is one member of this forum, apart from Venerable Dhammanando, able to reasonably discuss Abhidhamma. Similar to people who believe in God, it appears most Abhidhammists on this forum have a type of blind faith.
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
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 24509
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,
DooDoot wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:53 am Similar to people who believe in God, it appears most Abhidhammists on this forum have a type of blind faith.
People do best when they speak the Abhidhamma rather than evangelize it. Those who evangelize it without understanding it (let alone understanding the objections to it) end up becoming a lightning rod for criticism, and this is counter-productive to their aims.

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)
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 11162
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 »

retrofuturist wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:57 am becoming a lightning rod for criticism.
what is a lightning rod for criticism? :shrug: the below? :shrug:

:strawman: :jedi:
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
SarathW
Posts: 16254
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: Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:53 am
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:44 am
:jumping: :jumping: :jumping:



That seems the grand scheme of some Trojans.
I doubt there is one member of this forum, apart from Venerable Dhammanando, able to reasonably discuss Abhidhamma. Similar to people who believe in God, it appears most Abhidhammists on this forum have a type of blind faith.
Agree.
The master is watching while the students play.
The fools rush in where angels fear to tread
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
asahi
Posts: 594
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 »

DooDoot wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:21 am did any Malaysians go to the 6th Buddhism Council? :shrug:
Fyi at that time it was still called Malaya not yet get her independent .
Pls refers to attached image to the left back row behind France .

Screenshot_20210610-143119_Chrome.jpg
User avatar
anthbrown84
Posts: 447
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 6:59 am

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

Post by anthbrown84 »

I'm chipping in late with this, but I wouldnt classify myself as Theravada, more Suttavada

At the end of the day, if any sect of buddhism refers to anything other than The suttas as a bible, then they are misrepresenting The Buddha.

The Buddha himself states this throughout The Suttas but we justify it by saying they're not accessible enough and not to be taken literally

Yes they are, and yes they are :)
"Your job in practise is to know the difference between the heart and the activity of the heart, that is it, it is that simple" Ajahn Tate
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 1715
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

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

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

SarathW wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:32 am ...
I don't believe that Sutta's are Buddhavacana.
...
umm ... at face value of the sentence, I want to disagree it by saying:
  • I significantly believe Suttas are Buddhavacana, verbatim as well as non-verbatim.

:heart:
.


🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐

Self ...
  • "an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" :D ~ MN22
asahi
Posts: 594
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 »

It is true one cant believe all existing suttas are Buddha vacana due to corruptions however , if you cant believe the suttas what else can you rely on ? :shrug:
Abhidhamma may works as references for the suttas not the other way round . If you finish reading all the suttas first most probably you will get a real picture of what dhamma should be . But if you finish reading Abhidhamma pitaka first then you will heading to no where , no sense of definite direction . :thinking:
SarathW
Posts: 16254
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 have no doubt that the Suttas are compiled from Buddha's teaching.
There could be some compilation errors.
Abhidhamma also Buddha's teaching tabulated in a different format.
End of the day whether it is Sutta or Abhidamma it is just a map.
We have to realise it with our own effort.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
atipattoh
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:28 am

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

Post by atipattoh »

DooDoot wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:21 am did any Malaysians go to the 6th Buddhism Council? :shrug:
Because Malaysia does not exist yet, until 1963?
Tanah Melayu was formed in 1957.
Around 1957, especially before 57-41, gun powder flying around quite often in rural area.

Btw, Theravada Buddhist Council M'sia is established in 2012.

Northern land of current land of M'sia, some belong to Siam (Thailand), exchanged.

A bit of background on Theravada establishment.
Kelantan, Perlis, Kedah and northern Perak are Siamese Temple. The monk during those period are from Thai. Their title/rank awarded by King of Siam. Communication in Siamese language. Langkasuka <-> Chaiya

Sri Lankan Temple did established in Penang, KL, but the abbot was from Sri Lanka.

Edit
Oops, your question already answered.
User avatar
Dhammavamsa
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon May 24, 2021 3:57 pm

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

Post by Dhammavamsa »

Imho,
I hold the Suttanta Pitaka: Digha Nikaya, Majjhima Nikaya, Anguttara Nikaya, and Samyutta Nikaya as authentic texts that handed to later generations via Bhante Ananda Arahanta Thera. So no doubt, these texts are of supreme authority in Buddhism.

Khuddaka Nikaya is a mixed bag but scholars often accept that several books in it are authentic such as Dhammapada, Itivuttaka, Theragatha, Therigatha, Udana, and Sutta Nipata, from the first council.

Later books such as Buddhavamsa and Patisambhidamagga are compiled by later monks in a helpful way to serve as a written record, as a source of inspiration, or to appreciate the complex doctrinal aspects of Dhamma. So these books are well orthodox in term of the Dhamma.

The Abhidhamma Pitaka exists after the first council were included in the scriptures and formed the Tipitaka. Since this Pitaka was scrutinized and accepted by the Arahantas of that time and later, I too accept it as orthodox scriptures.

Books like Visuddhimagga and all other commentaries, I treat these books similar to I treat the dhamma books cautiously. I only accept those commentaries from Mahaviharavins of Vibhajjavada tradition, that founded by Arahant Mahinda Thera.

The Abhidhamma Pitaka should not be the focus of Dhamma, despite its usefulness in Dhamma learning. The Suttanta Pitaka is complete and well-expounded. But people nowadays will interpret the Suttas in many ways to suit his/her agenda, creating a lot of wild theories and speculations. Therefore, the commentaries from Arahantas and ancient Elders are important to bring out true meanings and definition. :anjali:
Dhammapada (78)
Na bhaje pāpake mitte, na bhaje purisādhame.
bhajetha mitte kalyāṇe, bhajetha purisuttame.
Post Reply