Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
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 10:21 am
Pondera wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:39 am [

Oh. You want to get into “cognition”? That’s a laugh. Let’s look at the suttas. He tastes “bitter” he tastes “sweet” he tastes “pungent” he tastes “bland”. That is why they call it “cognition”.

Funny right? Well that is exactly what the Buddha said about “cognition”. What did he say about “perception”?

He perceives red. He perceives blue. Yellow. White. Thus it is called perception.

Probably not what you were looking for? Okay. I’ll take the bait.

Cognition of what? Let’s take something useful.

Cognition of the three marks upon the skhanda of perception.

A perception independently arises from an external object creating friction upon another external object. We call this “sound”. The mind cognizes “sound”. Within the “sound” the mind further cognizes further realities. It cognizes the mark of ill. It cognizes the mark of impermanence. It cognizes the mark of not-self. The sound disintergarates and the mind in samadhi turns it’s attention to other skhandas as they arise, persist, and fade.

I’ll just leave this here:
And tradition has it that those bhikkhus only who know Abhidhamma are true preachers of the Dhamma; the rest, though they speak on the Dhamma, are not preachers thereof. And why? They, in speaking on the Dhamma, confuse the different kinds of Kamma and of its results, the distinction between mind and matter, and the different kinds of states. The students of Abhidhamma do not thus get confused; hence a bhikkhu who knows Abhidhamma, whether he preaches the Dhamma or not, will be able to answer questions whenever asked. He alone, therefore, is a true preacher of the Dhamma.
- The Expositor (Atthasālinī).
Yeah. Already seen that quote. It’s a pretty impressive appeal to authority fallacy. Even more impressive when you consider that the authority is self asserted by the very same authors of the texts.

You see this dogmatic tactic in the Bible and Prajnaparamita texts.

Ie.” Our documents are authoritative because there’s a verse in them which states something to that same effect.”

Utter dogmatic scare tactics which make the authors feel good about themselves.

Anyway. You wanted to talk “cognition”. That’s your best response? Why did you bring it up? So you could tell me the authors of the abhidamma are self proclaimed dhamma masters?

Cool man. Thanks for wasting my time.
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
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 »

Dhammavamsa wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 10:33 am
Pondera wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 10:00 am
Dhammavamsa wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:46 am

Abhidhamma Pitaka is the analytical part of the Dhamma. It dissects the concepts such as aggregates, types of kamma, definition and underlying meaning of phrase that mentioned in the Suttas. Furthermore, Abhidhamma Pitaka and the commentaries were accepted by the Arahants since the ancient times with the original orthodox Mahasangha (Theravada). The other schools that split themselves from Theravada were schismatic and of no Arahants at all.

You are majored in maths and with logic thinking, yet you find Abhidhamma boring. I wonder how your profession has anything to do with Pariyatti. To me, this is just like putting SJW stuff in a military recruitment ad like what USA did recently.
Wow. Even though I haven’t the slightest clue what you’re going on about, I find that very offensive.

If anything, the Buddha’s words are the theorems, lemmas and conjectures of wisdom.

The abhidamma is an attempt of proof.

Like a mathematical proof. Like the proof of Fermats last Theorem.

I will NEVER understand that proof. However, I can appreciate the simple fact that no three positive integers a, b, and c satisfy the equation aⁿ + bⁿ = cⁿ for any integer value of n greater than 2.

Keep in mind that we can thank Andrew Wiles for his one hundred page proof of this fact.

And yet, what would it be compared to the margin that was too small for Fermat to scribble in his “simple and elegant” proof to the same effect??!!

Ie. abhidamma is not the simplest and most direct proof of the Buddha’s teachings.

The fact that every line I have read of it instantly bores me to tears is indication enough for ME that by not reading it I am saving what precious little time I have this earth.

Sujato - a Pali scholar - admits that learning the abhidamma at one point in his life meant having to unlearn it at a later point in his life.
Well, it is just a forum post.
So, Abhidhamma texts instantly bored you to tears? Well that doesn't mean you can falsify the usefulness of it.

Again, what Ajahn Sujato has to do with your own understanding on the subject? Couldn't you stand for your own statement?
Again? Have I brought up Sujato before?

Low blow, man. You like to come out fists a blazing.

Are you intentionally trying to hurt my feelings? I don’t think I will recover from that one. You’re mean.
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
Dhammavamsa
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon May 24, 2021 3:57 pm

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

Post by Dhammavamsa »

At long last, I learned a new term: Grabastic Buddhism.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Theravadan/com ... rsonified/

I'm out of here, can't handle much delusion.
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 »

Dhammavamsa wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 4:31 am At long last, I learned a new term: Grabastic Buddhism.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Theravadan/com ... rsonified/

I'm out of here, can't handle much delusion.
Good. Get out. Read a sutta.

If you understand the “Upanisa Sutta” without any confusion as to what the eleven conditions of transcendental DO are - based ENTIRELY on your own meditative efforts - then there is ABSOLUTELY no need for further reading.

You can (as the Buddha instructed) abandon the raft of Dhamma. Congratulations. You have reached the other shore.

No luck? Okay. Keep reading Katthavatthu. :rofl: read it until you know it by heart :clap:
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

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

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 6:28 am
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.
Actually, most, if not all, of the examples posted in in the OP appear to be from Theravada Commentary, not Canonical Abhidhamma.
See, for example: viewtopic.php?p=627892#p627892

Clearly, everyone has at least their own personal interpretation of Dhamma ("commentary"/"abhidhamma"), which may or may not be based on the commentaries/abidhammas of others.

As I said above, in my experience, the effort required to study in detail the works of Ven Nanananda seems similar in scale to the effort required to study the key Therevada summaries of Commentary: Visuddhimagga and Abhidhammatthasangaha (A Comprehensive Manual of the Abhidhamma).

:heart:
Mike
waryoffolly
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:30 pm

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

Post by waryoffolly »

From what I’ve seen so far even the commentaries themselves do not contain a single viewpoint (here I mean the atthakatha which Buddhagosa translated and edited, I do not mean his Visuddhimagga itself). The Visuddhimagga seems to have been an attempt to smooth together the atthakatha into a self-consistent doctrine.

So even the non-canonical commentaries that texts like the vimuttimagga and visuddhimagga depended on, in my current view, are multifaceted with multiple voices and viewpoints. Of course, I don’t feel extremely confident about this claim since I’ve only read a handful of atthakatha, but I’ve been very, very surprised by what I have read.

Retro, please take a look here: https://www.bps.lk/olib/bp/bp212s_Bodhi ... seship.pdf

You may be surprised to find that the commentary is actually keeping fairly close to the text. There are obviously some idiosyncratic views contained, but that is also true with any modern book on buddhism as well. Moreover, these are word-by-word commentaries filled with practical advice-something any suttavadin should appreciate. These are at least as worth reading as modern books on the dhamma, if not far more. The background stories are illustrative, and there is also surprisingly lots of humour contained as well so they also happen to be entertaining. For these texts, I think at least for parts of them, they do get a “pass” for the four great references. Although like with any modern book on dhamma, you have to be discerning.


mikenz66 wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 5:26 am
retrofuturist wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 6:28 am
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.
Actually, most, if not all, of the examples posted in in the OP appear to be from Theravada Commentary, not Canonical Abhidhamma.
See, for example: viewtopic.php?p=627892#p627892

Clearly, everyone has at least their own personal interpretation of Dhamma ("commentary"/"abhidhamma"), which may or may not be based on the commentaries/abidhammas of others.

As I said above, in my experience, the effort required to study in detail the works of Ven Nanananda seems similar in scale to the effort required to study the key Therevada summaries of Commentary: Visuddhimagga and Abhidhammatthasangaha (A Comprehensive Manual of the Abhidhamma).

:heart:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

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

Post by mikenz66 »

waryoffolly wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:24 pm From what I’ve seen so far even the commentaries themselves do not contain a single viewpoint (here I mean the atthakatha which Buddhagosa translated and edited, I do not mean his Visuddhimagga itself). The Visuddhimagga seems to have been an attempt to smooth together the atthakatha into a self-consistent doctrine.
Excellent point. Even the Visusddhimagga has a number of passages where different views are expressed, and even more where different experiences are listed. In places, it feels like a collection of talks by ancient practitioners. Which in my view is what makes it very valuable.

I would suggest careful consideration the various opinions and experiences described in the Visuddhimagga and other Commentaries, in the same way as one would consider talks and writings by modern teachers and scholars (or posts on internet forums :tongue:). I.e. neither dismissing them out of hand, nor considering them infallible.

:heart:
Mike
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

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

Post by Pulsar »

This thread is taking strange twists and turns, right now it has become about commentaries, and popular Buddhist texts.
But the thread is not objecting to popular text books on Buddhism which is in a beginner's domain.
This is called a Theravada discussion, not a Beginner's. Issue is not commentaries, there is a greater pathology involved with Abhidhamma, that needs careful diagnosis.
Instead of attending to the task at hand, which is about how suttas say something other than what Abhidhamma says ie 
Retrofuturist's Brief sutta based refutation of Abhidhamma,
folks bring in diversion tactics.
Why bring in V. Nanananda, it is not about him, not even about Analayo who many abhidhamma oriented folks seem to admire.
Meditation is an important aspect of the 8-fold path. There is a major problem with abhidhamma based buddhist meditation. It is found right inside DW, reflected by this discussion.
  • Early Buddhist Meditation Studies Bhikkhu Anālayo
a topic Padmist introduced, Padmist is struggling with comprehension, his/her concerns are not addressed on the parent thread. Later Padmist pleads
Could you please help me out on this thread
viewtopic.php?f=44&t=39638&p=612916#p612916
In the parent thread Ven.Dhammanando tried to help. He wrote 
Hi Padmist,

I've answered some of your easier questions, but frankly I don't think you yet have a sufficient foundation in the Suttas and Abhidhamma to get very much out of a highly ambitious work like Early Meditation Studies. This apparently did not help Padmist in the first instance.
I did not take part in that discussion, you understand why? right? because as I pointed out on this thread Buddha and Abhidhamma did not see eye to eye.
When the real issues are raised on this thread, no one answers the question inhouse. 
Buddha's teaching is based on "Origination of Suffering" and the teachings of Abhidhmma are based on "Origination of anything" according to DooDoot. viewtopic.php?f=13&t=40571&p=629637#p629637
  • If so, are the two teachings related?
Pali suttas are individual teachings, if some suttas are corrupt that is not a major problem to the wise practitioner. There are plenty of uncorrupted suttas that enables one to reach the goal.
  • Abhidhamma is a system that evolved to explain the suttas.
A system is not like individual suttas. Sutta Pitaka can survive in spite of corrupted suttas. Buddha probably knew this. Somewhere he informed Ananda
"As long as one person thinks that s/he can become an Arahant, the dispensation will survive"
If an error is made in the foundation of a system??? will the system get you to the desired goal?. Can Abhidhamma survive??? Therefore, in the following thread I said (meditation based on) abhidhamma takes you to a "No man's land", an euphemism for "not nibbana" 
Thank you DooDoot for pointing out the main issue with Abhidhamma.
I have admired the skills you exhibit, in resolving pressing issues now and then.
Sun rises here, brilliant are its rays,
like the suttas that speak of the great man.
With Love :candle:
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

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

Post by Ceisiwr »

Pulsar wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 1:06 pm
there is a greater pathology involved with Abhidhamma, that needs careful diagnosis.
Abhidhammikas aren’t suffering from a pathology.
“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
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

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

Post by mikenz66 »

Pulsar wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 1:06 pm This thread is taking strange twists and turns, right now it has become about commentaries, and popular Buddhist texts.
But the thread is not objecting to popular text books on Buddhism which is in a beginner's domain.
This is called a Theravada discussion, not a Beginner's. Issue is not commentaries, there is a greater pathology involved with Abhidhamma, that needs careful diagnosis.
Commentaries are mentioned because the OP objections are about the Theravada Commentaries. Almost nothing mentioned there is found in the Canonical Abhidhamma. The thread title is, therefore, rather misleading.

I'm not sure what you mean by "popular text books", but in my view Ven Nananada's commentaries are not "Beginners Books". They are are complex analyses that in places build on, and in other places disagree with, aspects of the ancient Theravada Commentaries.

And I think that Coëmgenu's analysis over here is very important:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=40455&start=225
Coëmgenu wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 4:17 pm .... They quote things like the quote that says something like "I don't have a closed fist with my teachings," as if "the suttas" are "the teachings of the Buddha." These things are being conflated full-stop by many here, IMO. ...
:heart:
Mike
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

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

Post by Pulsar »

Mike wrote "The thread title is rather misleading"
Let us be fair to the OP.
Dearest Mike: It is nice that you raised this issue of canonical abhidhamma?
You appear to think that Retro is clueless regarding canonical abhidhamma.
  • Let us go back and read the guidelines Retro laid out for this discussion.
We need to be fair before judging an OP.
I remember on my own jhana thread you judged me unfairly once. You accused me there, of discounting commentaries, but my jhana thread was not about commentaries at all.
I was able to understand the 10-fold path to Nibbana without resorting to commentaries.
If I followed the Dhamma laid out by the Theravada abhidhamma, I could not do that,
  • because Suttas and Theravada abhidhamma diverge at the very beginning of DO.
Theravada abhidhamma would have led me away from nibbana.
I have already pointed this out on Retro's thread, a comment that caught DooDoot's attention, elsewhere. 
What do you mean by canonical Abhidhamma? Can you pl explain?
Let us pay attention to what Retro is referring to in the title.
Under the title he explains.
An excerpt from his intro to the thread.
The Abhidhamma Pitaka did not exist
until the 3rd Buddhist Council,
centuries after the Buddha's passing and no other Buddhist sect in history has the Theravada's Abhidhamma Pitaka.
As such, it is a sectarian document
and not Buddhavacana
(the voice of the Buddha).
Therefore, even before addressing the content of the Abhidhamma itself,
the authority and necessity of the Abhidhamma should be rejected on
the following grounds specified in the Sutta Pitaka.
he continues to elaborate on the grounds.
  • Thus the title of the thread is clearly explained below it.
How can you say the title is misleading?
He has taken the necessary steps not to mislead.
He is not talking of the abhidhamma of Sarvāstivāda, Sautrāntikas,Dārṣṭāntikas Pudgalavāda, Haimavatas (“those of the snowy mountains”); or Vātsīputrīyas (“those affiliated with Vātsīputra”) respectively.
What is your definition of canonical abhidhamma?
Pl enlighten me? 
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

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

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Pulsar,

I'm sorry if you think I'm treating you or Paul unfairly. This is a discussion forum, where people post ideas and opinions. Paul has posted some rather forceful opinions, and I have posted my opinions.
Pulsar wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 10:27 am How can you say the title is misleading?
He has taken the necessary steps not to mislead.
He is not talking of the abhidhamma of Sarvāstivāda, Sautrāntikas,Dārṣṭāntikas Pudgalavāda, Haimavatas (“those of the snowy mountains”); or Vātsīputrīyas (“those affiliated with Vātsīputra”) respectively.
What is your definition of canonical abhidhamma?
Pl enlighten me? 
The Canonical Theravada Abhidhamma is here (much of it in English, so you can check the content yourself):
https://suttacentral.net/pitaka/abhidhamma/pli-tv-ab

The OP contains:
Common Abhidhamma Argument #1 - Mentality and materiality are paramattha dhammas (i.e. ultimate dhammas)
Common Abhidhamma Argument #2 - Dhammas exist
...


However, as I said near the top of the thread:
mikenz66 wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:49 am Hi Paul,

When you say "Abhidhamma" you appear to mean "Abhidhamma + Commentaries". It would be helpful to keep in mind that these are not the same thing. Here are some small examples:
Dhammanando wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 1:36 am
zan wrote: Sun May 17, 2020 6:01 pmAlso, do you know where the four paramattha dhammas are mentioned in the Abhidhamma Pitaka?
They are not mentioned by name in the Abhidhamma Piṭaka. Rather, the catuparamatthadhamma scheme is how the commentaries construe the material in the Abhidhamma Piṭaka as being organised.
Dhammanando wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 3:05 am ... I don't get the impression that the Abhidhamma Piṭaka itself had much influence on the general commentarial conception of the nature of a dhamma. To the extent that their claims about the nature of a dhamma are inferential ones, the commentators more often cite passages from the Suttanta Piṭaka, in particular the Khandha and Saḷāyatana-vaggas of the SN, and the Paṭisambhidāmagga, Nettippakaraṇa, Niddesa and Milindapañha of the KN.
:heart:
Mike
I hope that this clarifies why I think that this thread is actually:
"Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of the Theravada Commentaries"

:heart:
Mike
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 Pulsar,
Pulsar wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 10:27 am Let us pay attention to what Retro is referring to in the title.
Under the title he explains.
An excerpt from his intro to the thread.
The Abhidhamma Pitaka did not exist
until the 3rd Buddhist Council,
centuries after the Buddha's passing and no other Buddhist sect in history has the Theravada's Abhidhamma Pitaka.
As such, it is a sectarian document
and not Buddhavacana
(the voice of the Buddha).
Therefore, even before addressing the content of the Abhidhamma itself,
the authority and necessity of the Abhidhamma should be rejected on
the following grounds specified in the Sutta Pitaka.
he continues to elaborate on the grounds.
Thanks for clearly discerning the argument that was being made. I actually responded to Mike's objection all the way back on Page 2 of this topic here, when I said...
retrofuturist wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:58 am Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:49 am When you say "Abhidhamma" you appear to mean "Abhidhamma + Commentaries". It would be helpful to keep in mind that these are not the same thing.
It is true that there was first the Abhidhamma Pitaka (at the third Buddhist Council), and then there were subsequent commentaries about it. Thus, any objections I have provided about the Abhidhamma Pitaka in my opening posts only multiply further when one ventures headlong into the knotted skein of the commentarial literature. The volumes of Khuddaka Nikaya "Suttas" referred to in your quotation of venerable Dhammanando are widely understood not to be Buddhavacana, and would be better understood as proto-Abhidhamma, or proto-commentary. When I speak about the truth of the Sutta perspective, I am not speaking of those books.

As for myself, I am yet to encounter anyone who in any way meaningfully uses or follows the Abhidhamma Pitaka or these post-Buddha insertions into the Khuddaka Nikaya, but not the Commentaries themselves. If such Buddhists do exist, then they may by all means present themselves and explain how the criticisms in the opening post do not apply.

Metta,
Paul. :)
For whatever reason, Mike is still wheeling the same wheelbarrow now on Page 18. Only he could possibly explain why.

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."
waryoffolly
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:30 pm

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

Post by waryoffolly »

retrofuturist wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 10:03 pm
retrofuturist wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:58 am Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:49 am When you say "Abhidhamma" you appear to mean "Abhidhamma + Commentaries". It would be helpful to keep in mind that these are not the same thing.
It is true that there was first the Abhidhamma Pitaka (at the third Buddhist Council), and then there were subsequent commentaries about it. Thus, any objections I have provided about the Abhidhamma Pitaka in my opening posts only multiply further when one ventures headlong into the knotted skein of the commentarial literature. The volumes of Khuddaka Nikaya "Suttas" referred to in your quotation of venerable Dhammanando are widely understood not to be Buddhavacana, and would be better understood as proto-Abhidhamma, or proto-commentary. When I speak about the truth of the Sutta perspective, I am not speaking of those books.

As for myself, I am yet to encounter anyone who in any way meaningfully uses or follows the Abhidhamma Pitaka or these post-Buddha insertions into the Khuddaka Nikaya, but not the Commentaries themselves. If such Buddhists do exist, then they may by all means present themselves and explain how the criticisms in the opening post do not apply.

Metta,
Paul. :)
Hi Paul,

Can you (or anyone else) point me to quotes from the abhidhamma pitaka (not the commentaries) that substantiate each of the claims in your original post? It would strengthen your argument dramatically to do so. I’m also curious.

I don’t know much myself about the abhidhamma pitaka, but would like to see direct quotes for each of the following points:
Common Abhidhamma Argument #1 - Mentality and materiality are paramattha dhammas (i.e. ultimate dhammas)

Common Abhidhamma Argument #2 - Dhammas exist

Common Abhidhamma Argument #3 - Dhammas exist, independent of observation

Common Abhidhamma Argument #4 - Dhammas exist and then do not-exist with great rapidity, faster than a flash of lightning

Common Abhidhamma Argument #5 - Concepts are not dhammas (phenomena)

Common Abhidhamma Argument #6 - It is important to understand the different classifications for dhammas and their relations, as outlined in the Abhidhamma
Are they actually present in the abhidhamma pitaka itself which your criticisms are focusing on? I’d really prefer direct quotes if you have them, rather than just quoting an expert. I remember Geoff claimed to have found a quote for momentariness a long time ago in the abhidhamma pitaka, but I wasn’t convinced by it at the time.

My apologies if this has already been addressed (ie direct quotes substantiating each claim) earlier in this long thread. Please link me to it if so.

The Patisambhidamagga for example actually refutes sabhava if I’m remembering correctly. (It’s not in the abhidhamma pitaka, but as you say it is definitely abhidhamma for all practical purposes).

Best,
waryoffolly
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 WaryOfFolly,

Across my original post and my response to Mike, I believe your question has been addressed, to the extent that it pertains to this topic. As I said to Mike, "any objections I have provided about the Abhidhamma Pitaka in my opening posts only multiply further when one ventures headlong into the knotted skein of the commentarial literature."

What these "Common Abhidhamma Arguments" are based on is irrelevant to my contention that these common Abhidhammic arguments are refuted by the Suttas, and that post-Buddavacana works are unnecessary and were cautioned against by the Buddha himself. As I said to Mike, "I am yet to encounter anyone who in any way meaningfully uses or follows the Abhidhamma Pitaka or these post-Buddha insertions into the Khuddaka Nikaya, but not the Commentaries themselves. If such Buddhists do exist, then they may by all means present themselves and explain how the criticisms in the opening post do not apply.".

What has not been disputed at all in this topic is whether they are indeed "Common Abhidhamma Arguments". Being the common arguments of Abhidhammikas, rather than the arguments of Retrofuturist, you're best placed putting your question to them in the Abhidhamma section if you wish to better understand these six arguments and their doctrinal basis.

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."
Post Reply