Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:21 am As does the Abhidhamma, since it is Right View.
Not according to SN 12.15. :smile:
Remember... the Buddha was the source of the Dhamma.Thus, he wasn't providing second-hand commentary on something written down long ago. He was the primary source. Therefore, in order for those in attendance (and the broader Sangha at large) to be on the same page about his teachings, he'd have to be "on point", consistent and not needlessly explaining things differently. Thus, it's not "bizarre"... it's just expected from an unsurmountable teacher that they be aware of circumstances.
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:21 amTo understand it fully we require the further teachings of the monks and nuns, combined with our own experience.
An argument does not become true, simply through repetition.
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:21 am The key question is how true is the claim?
Someone within the tradition slandered the Buddha by claiming that he spoke their Abhidhamma. Others, knowingly or otherwise, repeated that falsehood. I trust that answers your question.

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."
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by asahi »

retrofuturist wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:21 am
More productive than what, though? My original post explained why that is unnecessary.
Hi ,

The better approach is when you starts to bring on all the defective parts to the table thats how the truth prevails .
No bashing No gossiping
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,

I've explained how such a piecemeal approach is unnecessary. Nor do I find it satisfactory as it never gets to the crux of the issue. Hence this topic.

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."
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by Ceisiwr »

Personally one of the best things that lead me to accepting the authority of the Theras was in reading the history and doctrines of the other early schools. For example, as I mentioned earlier, the Theravādin Abhidhamma recognises only 1 unconditioned dhamma. Sarvāstivāda recognised 3 in their Abhidhamma. Pudgalavāda recognised 1 along with Theravāda, and the two were one of the few schools to remain true to the teachings in this regard. Yet, Pudgalavāda recognised a person whilst Theravāda didn’t. So, based on this quick analysis we have:

Sarvāstivāda: 3 unconditioned elements & dhammas exist in the 3 times.

Pudgalavāda: 1 unconditioned element, the person exists.

Theravāda: 1 unconditioned element, the person doesn’t really exist. It’s a concept only.

Theravāda here is closer to the Blessed One.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by Ceisiwr »

retrofuturist wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:28 am Not according to SN 12.15. :smile:
Which in no way contradicts what I’ve said.
An argument does not become true, simply through repetition.
Yet you yourself have explained the suttas through quoting Ven. Nananada et al.

If the suttas were enough, on their own, why the commentary and higher Dhamma?
Someone within the tradition slandered the Buddha by claiming that he spoke their Abhidhamma. Others, knowingly or otherwise, repeated that falsehood. I trust that answers your question.
This is dodging the question.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by asahi »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:35 am
Sarvāstivāda: 3 unconditioned elements & dhammas exist in the 3 times.

Pudgalavāda: 1 unconditioned element, but a person exists.

Theravāda: 1 unconditioned element, the person doesn’t really exist. It’s a concept only.

Theravāda here is closer to the Blessed One.
Now the problems are , C is a self declared Theravadin . R also declared himself Theravadin . Pak Auk , Goenka and Dhammakaya appear to be Theravadan .

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:35 am
If the suttas were enough, on their own, why the commentary and higher Dhamma?

Dhamma itself is highest . Where are the higher Dhamma ? Abhidhamma ?
Last edited by asahi on Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
No bashing No gossiping
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by Ceisiwr »

asahi wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:49 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:35 am
Sarvāstivāda: 3 unconditioned elements & dhammas exist in the 3 times.

Pudgalavāda: 1 unconditioned element, but a person exists.

Theravāda: 1 unconditioned element, the person doesn’t really exist. It’s a concept only.

Theravāda here is closer to the Blessed One.
Now the problems are , C is a self declared Theravadin . R also declared himself Theravadin . Pak Auk , Goenka and Dhammakaya appear to be Theravadan .
Retro isn’t a Theravādin.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Dhammavamsa
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon May 24, 2021 3:57 pm

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by Dhammavamsa »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:51 am
asahi wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:49 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:35 am
Sarvāstivāda: 3 unconditioned elements & dhammas exist in the 3 times.

Pudgalavāda: 1 unconditioned element, but a person exists.

Theravāda: 1 unconditioned element, the person doesn’t really exist. It’s a concept only.

Theravāda here is closer to the Blessed One.
Now the problems are , C is a self declared Theravadin . R also declared himself Theravadin . Pak Auk , Goenka and Dhammakaya appear to be Theravadan .
Retro isn’t a Theravādin.
What is Retro then?

Mahayanist ? Neo-buddhist? Secular Buddhist?
Deleted
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:51 am Retro isn’t a Theravādin.
(Setting aside the fact this is another attempt at ex-communication, and that's what prompted me to start this topic...)

If I am not Theravadin by virtue of the fact that i follow the Sutta Pitaka, then that says more about Theravada than it says about me.

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."
Dhammavamsa
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon May 24, 2021 3:57 pm

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by Dhammavamsa »

retrofuturist wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:59 am Greetings,
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:51 am Retro isn’t a Theravādin.
(Setting aside the fact this is another attempt at ex-communication, and that's what prompted me to start this topic...)

If I am not Theravadin by virtue of the fact that i follow the Sutta Pitaka, then that says more about Theravada than it says about me.

Metta,
Paul. :)
Oh, so you are Sautrāntika...
Deleted
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by Ceisiwr »

Dhammavamsa wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:56 am [
What is Retro then?

Mahayanist ? Neo-buddhist? Secular Buddhist?
I would classify him as a Suttavādin. Of course this still means he is a follower of the Blessed One, and a brother in the Dhamma. It's merely a difference in understanding. Retro looks to the suttas only, and monks whom take the same approach, whilst you and I encompass a larger range of authority and so reference.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
SarathW
Posts: 21234
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by SarathW »

Zom wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 3:03 pm
Matikas were the sources for the later Abhidhamma.
Yes. And then they started to live their own life, that's how Abhidhamma theory appeared.
I can recall a Sri Lankan Buddhist monk mention this too.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10172
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by Spiny Norman »

retrofuturist wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:59 am
(Setting aside the fact this is another attempt at ex-communication, and that's what prompted me to start this topic...)
And setting aside the fact there is nobody to do the ex-communicating anyway....
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Dhammavamsa
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon May 24, 2021 3:57 pm

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by Dhammavamsa »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:09 am
Dhammavamsa wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:56 am [
What is Retro then?

Mahayanist ? Neo-buddhist? Secular Buddhist?
I would classify him as a Suttavādin. Of course this still means he is a follower of the Blessed One, and a brother in the Dhamma. It's merely a difference in understanding.
Oh. A plot twist. Non-Theravadin is the site admin of a Theravada website.

Not quite sure about that. :juggling: His understanding on the Suttas mainly derived from personal interpretation and some new-age reasoning, which could be entirely different path.

No judging but I wouldn't consider the usage of "brother in the Dhamma" term.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sautr%C4%81ntika
Deleted
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 3073
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by Pondera »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:09 am
Dhammavamsa wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:56 am [
What is Retro then?

Mahayanist ? Neo-buddhist? Secular Buddhist?
I would classify him as a Suttavādin. Of course this still means he is a follower of the Blessed One, and a brother in the Dhamma. It's merely a difference in understanding. Retro looks to the suttas only, and monks whom take the same approach, whilst you and I encompass a larger range of authority and so reference.
Before the Elders formulated their lists and compiled their arguments and counter-arguments, (in the 3rd century BC) what were they? Dhamma-vinaya?
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
Post Reply