Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

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

Post by DooDoot »

Spiny Norman wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:22 am The wood pile is mostly earth element, and I'm not sure that sutta means what you think it means.
If a pile of wood was merely an idea or name, it could not knock a person unconscious :cry:
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
Zom
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

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

Post by Zom »

Matikas were the sources for the later Abhidhamma.
Yes. And then they started to live their own life, that's how Abhidhamma theory appeared.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

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

Post by Ceisiwr »

I posted this in a response elsewhere, but thought it was relevant here too (where I am still to reply in full)

So as mentioned here is the passage that lead to the development of a few schisms within the Pudgalavāda tradition:

"Being already delivered, one falls again.
The fall comes from craving; one returns again.
Having attained the place of calm joy, there is happiness.
If one follows the practices of happiness, there is perfect happiness."


According to Bareau, who cites, Vasumitra, the numerous sub-schools that developed out of Pudgalavāda in part centred around different interpretations of this one stanza. Even more interesting is that the Sammatīyas, which were a major sub-school of Pudgalavāda, also disagreed with the Śāriputrābhidharma (which Pudgalavāda seems to have accepted, if in part) and so developed their own version by explaining it with the "meaning of the sūtras". Sounds familiar, doesn't it. It seems there is a pattern in Buddhism where an Abhidhamma of sorts is developed, then, once it is established, a sub-tradition develops in opposition to it yet in turn develops an Abhidhamma of it’s own. We see evidence of this in Pudgalavāda, we know it happened in Sarvāstivāda with the Sautrāntikas and now we see it happening today with Theravāda and it's own developing Suttavādin sub-tradition (which seems to be highly influenced by western Progressivism). It's almost as if relying upon the suttas is not enough, and that the Abhidhamma is inevitable. The question then is of course, which Abhidhamma is best?

:reading:

This also suggests that Buddhist Protestantism is something of a folly. Those who reject orthodoxy merely end up creating their own, but usually without the foundational wisdom of those who came before.

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=40545&p=629344#p629344
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sat Jun 19, 2021 6:54 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
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 5:14 am It's almost as if relying on the suttas is not enough, and that the Abhidhamma is inevitable.
This is false. Even though sectarians feel compelled to create their own sectarian doctrines, the Dhamma of the Buddha remains for those without sectarian identification. Sectarianism is not inevitable, and there's no reason for an individual to entertain it or partake of it.

If people took seriously the Ani Sutta etc. quoted in my original post, there would be no sects, and there would be no Abhidhamma. This is a path of non-proliferation (nippapanca) rather than proliferation (papanca).

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: 22383
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 6:15 am Greetings,
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 5:14 am It's almost as if relying on the suttas is not enough, and that the Abhidhamma is inevitable.
This is false. Even though sectarians feel compelled to create their own sectarian doctrines, the Dhamma of the Buddha remains for those without sectarian identification. Sectarianism is not inevitable, and there's no reason for an individual to entertain it or partake of it.

If people took seriously the Ani Sutta etc. quoted in my original post, there would be no sects, and there would be no Abhidhamma. This is a path of non-proliferation (nippapanca) rather than proliferation (papanca).

Metta,
Paul. :)
History suggests otherwise. I mean, even your phenomenological/Ven. Nanananda interpretation is a higher explanation. The suttas are stripped down teachings. They aren’t direct recordings of full conversations, although some contain part conversations. That being so, they require further explanations. You are as much an Abhidhammika as I ;)
“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
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 6:23 am History suggests otherwise. I mean, even your phenomenological/Ven. Nanananda interpretation is a higher explanation.
As mentioned in another topic recently, you are conflating Abhidhamma and explanation or commentary.
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 6:23 am The suttas are stripped down teachings. They aren’t direct recordings of full conversations, although some contain part conversations. That being so, they require further explanations.
Again, false. To say they "require further explanation" is a sectarian position, unsubstantiated by the suttas.
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 6:23 am You are as much an Abhidhammika as I ;)
Wash your potty mouth, sir.

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: 22383
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 6:28 am As mentioned in another topic recently, you are conflating Abhidhamma and explanation or commentary.
And as explained to you, commentary explains a specific teaching or text. Abhidhamma explains the whole Dhamma.
Again, false. To say they "require further explanation" is a sectarian position, unsubstantiated by the suttas.
The Blessed One wouldn’t have taught in such repetitive and simple terms like we find in the suttas. I imagine Dhamma talks went on for hours, like Ajahn Chah’s. Like how most Dhamma talks do. Even an hour from a monk today is more detailed than a sutta.
Wash your potty mouth, sir.

Metta,
Paul. :)
But you are. Accept this.
“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
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,
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 6:34 am And as explained to you, commentary explains a specific teaching or text. Abhidhamma explains the whole Dhamma.
This may be your private interpretation but it is neither standard, nor accepted.
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 6:34 amThe Blessed One wouldn’t have taught in such repetitive and simple terms like we find in the suttas. I imagine Dhamma talks went on for hours, like Ajahn Chah’s.
This sounds like proliferation on your part.
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 6:34 amLike how most Dhamma talks do. Even an hour from a monk today is more detailed than a sutta.
You're assuming that monks have the same reason and motivation for giving Dhamma talks that the Buddha did... and that their pedagogy would be the same. I don't accept these assumptions.
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 6:34 amBut you are. Accept this.
I do not accept that. Just because you are unwilling and/or incapable of imagining a Buddhadhamma devoid of sectarianism, does not mean that others are similarly captured.

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 »

I realized that this entire sectarian debate might just be pointless once we can investigate the history of India and Buddhism development, as well as historical documents such as Mahavamsa, Culavamsa and Dipavamsa.

And I agree with Ceisiwr, every Buddhist teacher that rejected Abhidhamma and commentaries, be it laymen or monastic, will still invent their own explanation or give their own personal interpretation for the Suttas. If failed or incapable to do so, they will just reject the Suttas as fake suttas.

But there ain't Fox News in Pali Tipitaka. :reading:
Deleted
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
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 7:27 am
This may be your private interpretation but it is neither standard, nor accepted.
This is fact. Abhidhamma concerns itself with the whole Dhamma. Commentary with specific texts or teachings.
This sounds like proliferation on your part.
You really think the Blessed One when debating with other ascetics would just utter a few repetitive sentences? How bizarre.
You're assuming that monks have the same reason and motivation for giving Dhamma talks that the Buddha did... and that their pedagogy would be the same. I don't accept this assumption.
I made no such assumption. What I said was that Dhamma talks would be more, shall we say, substantial than what we find in the suttas. If the monks or nuns motivation is the same is a different matter. Let’s assume a virtuous monk, like Ven. Nananada. His voluminous works are greater than what we find in the suttas.
I do not accept that. Just because you are unwilling and/or incapable of imagining a Buddhadhamma devoid of sectarianism, does not mean that others are similarly captured.

Metta,
Paul. :)
I see sectarianism in many of the old schools, and the new ;) The central point is given the state of the other schools, how sectarian was Theravāda really? Was their sectarianism anti-Dhamma or rather an uncompromising defence of Dhamma? Was their sectarianism good or bad?

These 17 sects are schismatic,
only one is non-schismatic.
With the non-schismatic sect,
there are eighteen in all.
Like a great banyan tree,
the Theravāda is supreme,
The Dispensation of the Conqueror,
complete, without lack or excess.
The other sects arose
like thorns on the tree.

— Dīpavaṃsa

To quote what I’ve posted before:

Ajahn Sujato, not a major fan of Theravāda, called us the textual exegesis school par excellence:
The recent manuscript finds from Gandhāra give us a new source of Dharmaguptaka texts, and a new insight into how they developed. According to Richard Salomon, the existing texts, which are in a very bad state of decay, date from shortly after the Common Era, that is, the beginning of the middle period of Indian Buddhism. They lack the textual uniformity we have come to expect from the Pali, and thus Salomon suggests they stem from a time when the canon was not yet fully formed. Alternatively, it could be the case that the Dharmaguptakas did not place as much premium as the Mahāvihāravāsins on textual precision: we have seen that the Dīpavaṁsa ascribes the root schism to bad textuality, and the prominence of the paṭisambhidās in their root-treatise the Paṭisambhidāmagga confirms the centrality of textual analysis for this school. Indeed, the Mahāvihāravāsins, so far as we know, are the only school to produce a complete body of commentaries on the canonical texts. Perhaps we should regard them as the textual exegesis school par excellence.
Sects & Sectarianism

With that in mind, whom would you trust to pass on the word of the Buddha? The school almost obsessed with textual analysis, interpretation, analytical analysis and conservatism seems like a good candidate to me.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sat Jun 19, 2021 7:52 am, edited 2 times 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
AlexBrains92
Posts: 1211
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

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

Post by AlexBrains92 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 7:42 am You really think the Blessed One when debating with other ascetics would just utter a few repetitive sentences?
And also with noble silence :candle:
(Hi Ceisiwr!)

«He does not construct even the subtlest apperception with regard
to what is seen, heard or thought; how would one conceptualise
that Brahmin in this world, who does not appropriate a view?

They do not fabricate, they do not prefer, they do not accept any
doctrine; the Brahmin cannot be inferred through virtue or vows,
such a person has gone to the far shore and does not fall back.»


- Snp 4.5 -
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,
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 7:42 am Abhidhamma concerns itself with the whole Dhamma.
It does not appear this way to me. Whereas the Dhamma has the taste of liberation, the Abhidhamma has the taste of description.
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 7:42 am You really think the Blessed One when debating with other ascetics would just utter a few repetitive sentences?
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 7:42 amThe central point is given the state of the other schools, how sectarian was Theravāda really? Was their sectarianism anti-Dhamma or rather an uncompromising defence of Dhamma? Was their sectarianism good or bad?
Sectarianism is always bad because it leads to deviation from the Buddha's teachings, as explained per the quotes from the original post. The best of all paths is the follow the Doctrine and the Discipline. Instead of sectarianism, the instructions of the Mahaparinibbana Sutta should be followed and taken seriously (e.g. Dhamma as the Teacher, application of Four Great References to trace what that Dhamma-Vinaya is).
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 7:42 am ...
The other sects arose
like thorns on the tree.

— Dīpavaṃsa
That's the thing about sectarian writings... they're so predictably self-serving.

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 »

Wouldnt it be more productive to take some example in the abhidhamma and examine them under the lights of the suttas ?
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,
asahi wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:17 am Wouldnt it be more productive to take some example in the abhidhamma and examine them under the lights of the suttas ?
More productive than what, though? My original post explained why that is unnecessary.

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: 22383
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 7:58 am
It does not appear this way to me. Whereas the Dhamma has the taste of liberation, the Abhidhamma has the taste of description.
As does the Abhidhamma, since it is Right View.
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.
Well, he isn’t the source of the Dhamma. He awakened to it. Putting that to one side, if we were all in the presence of the Blessed One all of these debates would be done way with apart from the most vile of heretics. Sadly we don’t live in that time. Like Ven. Buddhaghosa, Ven. Nanananda and many others we live post his life. We live in an age where the suttas contain the bare minimum of Dhamma. To understand it fully we require the further teachings of the monks and nuns, combined with our own experience. As I said, your Phenomenological interpretation is a form of Abhidhamma. It’s a further explanation of the Dhamma as a whole.
Sectarianism is always bad because it leads to deviation from the Buddha's teachings, as explained per the quotes from the original posts. The best of all paths is the follow the Doctrine and the Discipline. Instead of sectarianism, the instructions of the Mahaparinibbana Sutta should be followed and taken seriously (e.g. Dhamma as the Teacher, application Four Great References to trace what that Dhamma-Vinaya is).
I think you misunderstood me. Theravāda was sectarian in opposition to the numerous heresies that developed around it. Theravādin sectarianism was good, as it was defending the Dhamma as best it could against covert atta theories, eternalist metaphysics and the developing Mahāyāna. Does that mean everything in the commentaries or sub-commentaries is right? No, and even by their own standards they should be judged against the suttas but compared to what was and is out there the safe refuge is with the Mahavihāravāsins, the Dwellers in the Great Monastery.

The Sarvāstivādins went off into ever more elaborate metaphysics (Ven. Buddhaghosa warned that an excess of Abhidhamma can lead to this) an in turn birthed the reaction of Yogācāra and possibly Madhyamaka, the Pudgalavādins had their “person” heresy whilst the Dharmaguptaka eventually succumbed fully to the Mahāyāna. Only the Mahavihāravāsins strived to stay true to the original Dhamma.
That's the thing about sectarian writings... they're so predictably self-serving.

Metta,
Paul. :)
The key question is how true is the claim?
“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.”
Post Reply