Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
BrokenBones
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am

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

Post by BrokenBones »

It has probably been said before but the Theravada Abhidhamma is sectarian. One party manifesto among many others... the fact that it is still extant doesn't alter the fact that it is just one splinter groups attempt to redefine the Buddha's teachings down to the last atom.

If people feel the suttas are not enough for them... fine... dissect away.

But two things should be considered...

1. Don't downgrade the suttas or insinuate that they are in any way deficient and needing clarification.

2. If you feel so inclined... explain how the Abhidhamma tomes have a practical impact on your practice.
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 11:38 pm 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. :)
Done, link here for those interested: viewtopic.php?f=18&t=40610
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,

Thanks. That has the potential to be an interesting topic.

As you know, many people have put substantial effort into disentangling the Sutta Pitaka from the commentarial literature which attempts to shape it in its own sectarian image. Similar efforts have apparently not been made in the case of the Abhidhamma, most likely because neither the Abhidhamma Pitaka, nor associated commentary are Buddhavacana, so there's not the same incentive.

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
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
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: Tue Jun 22, 2021 10:03 pm For whatever reason, Mike is still wheeling the same wheelbarrow now on Page 18. Only he could possibly explain why.
I specifically responded to a question by Pulsar, which seemed to further the confusion demonstrated by the OP. As you say, the quote from Ven D is often considered to be commentary. That doesn't mean that it is "Abhidhamma".

: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 »

When WayOfFolly inquired on another thread
Do these six points have direct quotes  in the Abhidhamma?
Assaji replied
"Apparently, Retro referred to the medieval Abhidhamma. I don't think these points are presented in the Abhidhamma"
Dearest Retro, were you quoting from medieval abhidhamma? I am clueless regarding this. My google search offered me the following
medieval literally means"of the Middle Ages". In this case, middle means "between the Roman empire and the Renaissance"—that is, after the fall of the great Roman state and before the "rebirth" of culture that we call the Renaissance.
A medieval manuscript is related to the Middle Ages (= the period in European history from about A.D. 600 to A.D. 1500):
Is there a Theravada abhidhamma related to the middle ages also?
Regarding plain old Abhidhamma i found the following, but it does not have a clear definition of Medieval abhidhamma.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhidharma
Best to everyone on this thread.
With love :candle:
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
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 12, 2021 2:03 am
Common Abhidhamma Argument #1 - Mentality and materiality are paramattha dhammas (i.e. ultimate dhammas)

Sutta Reponse: Never in the Suttas are materiality referred to as "dhammas". Dhammas are phenomena, whereas materiality is noumena. Instead, materiality is represented in the Sutta via mahabhuta (great elements). As for mentality, that will be addressed below.
This has already been addressed. When you said "noumena" you didn't mean noumena, as it seems you don't fully understand what a noumenon is.

Common Abhidhamma Argument #2 - Dhammas exist

Sutta Reponse: If there was Right View about dhammas, it would be evident that to speak of "existence" and "non-existence" is to misconceive what dhammas are...
SN 12.15 wrote:
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one."
It is more likely the Buddha was arguing with eternalists, who came down on the existence side of a soul, and annihilationists, who came down on the non-existence side of a soul, rather than someone like Ven. Saṃghabhadra. I think it is a mistake to backread much later debates such as those between Abhidharmikas and Ven. Nāgārjuna into the suttas and āgamas.
At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, I do not dispute with the world; rather, it is the world that disputes with me. A proponent of the Dhamma does not dispute with anyone in the world. Of that which the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, I too say that it does not exist. And of that which the wise in the world agree upon as existing, I too say that it exists.

“And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, of which I too say that it does not exist? Form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, and I too say that it does not exist. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, and I too say that it does not exist.

“That, bhikkhus, is what the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, of which I too say that it does not exist.

“And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists.

“That, bhikkhus, is what the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists.

“There is, bhikkhus, a world-phenomenon in the world to which the Tathagata has awakened and broken through. Having done so, he explains it, teaches it, proclaims it, establishes it, discloses it, analyses it, elucidates it.

“And what is that world-phenomenon in the world to which the Tathagata has awakened and broken through? Form, bhikkhus, is a world-phenomenon in the world to which the Tathagata has awakened and broken through. Having done so, he explains it, teaches it, proclaims it, establishes it, discloses it, analyses it, elucidates it. When it is being thus explained … … and elucidated by the Tathagata, if anyone does not know and see, how can I do anything with that foolish worldling, blind and sightless, who does not know and does not see?

“Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness is a world-phenomenon in the world to which the Tathagata has awakened and broken through. Having done so, he explains it, teaches it, proclaims it, establishes it, discloses it, analyses it, elucidates it. When it is being thus explained … and elucidated by the Tathagata, if anyone does not know and see, how can I do anything with that foolish worldling, blind and sightless, who does not know and does not see?

“Bhikkhus, just as a blue, red, or white lotus is born in the water and grows up in the water, but having risen up above the water, it stands unsullied by the water, so too the Tathagata was born in the world and grew up in the world, but having overcome the world, he dwells unsullied by the world.”
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.94/en/bodhi

The Buddha acknowledging a lot of dhammas and their existence there, for someone who apparently preached against ontic commitments.
Common Abhidhamma Argument #3 - Dhammas exist, independent of observation

Sutta Reponse: This may be true of noumena such as mahabhuta, which are not phenomena (dhammas) but as it applies to dhammas, it is refuted by the Suttas, which state...
SN 47.42 wrote:
With the arising of attentiveness there is the arising of dhammas. With the cessation of attentiveness there is the cessation of dhammas
This sutta refers to the awakening factors and the hindrances.
Common Abhidhamma Argument #4 - Dhammas exist and then do not-exist with great rapidity, faster than a flash of lightning

Sutta Reponse: This argument has no basis in the Suttas, and such a binary view of phenomena is in fact refuted...
AN 3.47 wrote:
"Monks, these three are fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, alteration (literally, other-ness) while staying is discernible.

"These are three fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated.
Note, the arising, alteration/other-ness, and passing away are all discernible. This establishes what one might call a non-binary approach to the nature of phenomena. The Abhidhamma ontology does not allow for such discernment of alteration inbetween its rigid binary options of "exist" and "does not exist". One might counter this Sutta analysis saying that under rarefied meditation conditions this could be seen, but again, there is no mention of this elaborate pre-requisite in the Suttas and it therefore appears to be nothing more than apologetics.
Whilst its not until we get to the Yamaka, Kathāvatthu and Niddessa that we get momentariness stated outright, it is an implication of the dhamma theory. If houses are not real but dhammas are then arising, persisting and cessation only applies to them. The mental dhammas rise and cease rapidly, as per the suttas. The only question is how long do physical dhammas last? The Sautrāntikas of old argued that physical dhammas and mental dhammas have the same duration. This was a radical form of momentariness which, incidently, fed into their representationalist theory of perception (which in turn influenced Ven. Vasubandhu). In Theravāda they are said to last for 17 mind moments.
Common Abhidhamma Argument #5 - Concepts are not dhammas (phenomena)

Sutta Reponse: This doctrinal position is a consequence of the Abhidhamma's compulsion to classify dhammas as either existing or non-existing. Since "concepts" do not fall under the Abhidhamma classification of dhammas, they are denied existence, and denied the status of being "dhammas" (phenomena). However, anyone who has ever had an idea knows fully well that ideas are experienced. The Suttas confirm this common sense view...
SN 35.93 wrote:

"In dependence on the mind & ideas there arises mind-consciousness. The mind is inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. Ideas are inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. Thus this pair is both wavering & fluctuating — inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise.

Instructions on observing the phenomena of ideas are presented in the Satipatthana Sutta...

MN 10 wrote:
Thus he lives contemplating ideas in ideas internally, or he lives contemplating ideas in ideas externally, or he lives contemplating ideas in ideas internally and externally. He lives contemplating origination factors in ideas, or he lives contemplating dissolution factors in ideas, or he lives contemplating origination-and-dissolution factors in ideas. Or his mindfulness is established with the thought, "There are ideas," to the extent necessary just for knowledge and mindfulness, and he lives detached, and clings to nothing in the world.
The suttas you refer to are referring to dhammas. The translator has simply translated "dhamma" as "idea". I imagine it was Ven. Sujato. Regarding concepts, they are dhammas but they are dhammas without any sabhāva. Therefore, they are not real yet we can say they exist. The concept of a house, God or a soul exists in name. It is nominally existent. A house, God or a soul however has no intrinsic quality nor has any causal effect. There is nothing behind the concept "being" or "house" other than the sabhāva dhammas. Behind the concept of the sabhāva dhammas are the sabhāva dhammas. If concepts had an intrinsic quality and were causally operative they would be real, and so a self would be real.

“Why now do you assume ‘a being’?
Mara, is that your speculative view?
This is a heap of sheer formations:
Here no being is found.

“Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word ‘chariot’ is used,
So, when the aggregates exist,
There is the convention ‘a being.’

“It’s only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.”
- SN 5.10

If a "being" were real then it would arise, persist for a time and then would cease. This is falling into the wrong view of annihilationism. The view that there is some reality to the concept "being", and that said being ceases.

"Besides the two categories of paramattha (the real) and paññatti (concepts), a third category does not exist. One who is skilful in these two categories does not tremble in the face of other teachings." Abhidhammāvatāra by Ven. Buddhadatta
Common Abhidhamma Argument #6 - It is important to understand the different classifications for dhammas and their relations, as outlined in the Abhidhamma
Yes, just as with dependent origination or what feeds and starves the awakening factors/hindrances. The Abhidhamma is doing the same thing as the suttas, it's just more systematic. The commentaries then explain this systematic architecture of the Dhamma.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Thu Jun 24, 2021 9:28 pm, edited 6 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
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

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

Post by Ceisiwr »

BrokenBones wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 11:55 pm It has probably been said before but the Theravada Abhidhamma is sectarian. One party manifesto among many others... the fact that it is still extant doesn't alter the fact that it is just one splinter groups attempt to redefine the Buddha's teachings down to the last atom.
I doubt the Elders of any of the early Buddhist schools thought that what they were doing was "redefining" the Dhamma. Why do you impute such nefarious intentions into the monks and nuns of old? It's almost as if you view them with disdain.
1. Don't downgrade the suttas or insinuate that they are in any way deficient and needing clarification.
I find this bizarre. Plenty of people when the Buddha was alive needed clarification of what he was teaching. The same has been true of nearly all people through the ages.
“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: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

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

Post by mikenz66 »

Regarding SN35.93, MN10, ec.
Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Jun 24, 2021 8:48 pm Common Abhidhamma Argument #5 - Concepts are not dhammas (phenomena)
...
The suttas you refer to are referring to dhammas. The translator has simply translated "dhamma" as "idea". I imagine it was Ven. Sujato.
For SN35.93 it's Thanissaro: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN35_93.html
“In dependence on the intellect & ideas there arises intellect-consciousness. The intellect is inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. Ideas are inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. Thus this pair is both wavering & fluctuating—inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN35_93.html
Sujato uses thoughts there, which perhaps loses part of the meaning, but certainly it's dhammas...
Mind consciousness arises dependent on the mind and thoughts.
Manañca paṭicca dhamme ca uppajjati manoviññāṇaṁ.
The mind is impermanent, perishing, and changing.
Mano anicco vipariṇāmī aññathābhāvī.
Thoughts are impermanent, perishing, and changing.
Dhammā aniccā vipariṇāmino aññathābhāvino.
So this duality is tottering and toppling; it’s impermanent, perishing, and changing.
Itthetaṁ dvayaṁ calañceva byathañca aniccaṁ vipariṇāmi aññathābhāvi.
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.93/en/sujato
Bhikkhu Bodhi has:
In dependence on the mind and mental phenomena there arises mind-consciousness. The mind is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise; mental phenomena are impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. Thus this dyad is moving and tottering, impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise.
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.93/en/bodhi
As for MN10, Sujato uses principles, based on the interpretation that that section is about "Dhamma principles" (hindrances, awakening factors, etc), which could of course be argued about, but is not so relevant to your points.
They meditate observing an aspect of principles—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.
dhammesu dhammānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā, vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṁ.
https://suttacentral.net/mn10/en/sujato
: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 Ceisiwr,
Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Jun 24, 2021 8:48 pm
retrofuturist wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 2:03 am Common Abhidhamma Argument #1 - Mentality and materiality are paramattha dhammas (i.e. ultimate dhammas)
Thank you for taking the time to present a response to the Sutta Based Responses. Stepping back further, it appears that you are standing alongside the (6) Common Abhidhamma Arguments and affirming that they are indeed common Abhidhamma arguments. Are you able to confirm whether this is so, because I am not an Abhidhammika, and the list of arguments was compiled in good faith based upon my readings and by following discussions on forums such as this.

:thanks:

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: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

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

Post by Ceisiwr »

retrofuturist wrote: Thu Jun 24, 2021 9:33 pm Greetings Ceisiwr,
Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Jun 24, 2021 8:48 pm
retrofuturist wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 2:03 am Common Abhidhamma Argument #1 - Mentality and materiality are paramattha dhammas (i.e. ultimate dhammas)
Thank you for taking the time to present a response to the Sutta Based Responses. Stepping back further, it appears that you are standing alongside the (6) Common Abhidhamma Arguments and affirming that they are indeed common Abhidhamma arguments. Are you able to confirm whether this is so, because I am not an Abhidhammika, and the list of arguments was compiled in good faith based upon my readings and by following discussions on forums such as this.

:thanks:

Metta,
Paul. :)
Apart from some issues in how you have worded some of them, yes. Those are Theravadin Abhidhammika positions (I’m including commentary here too) and my own position. Analysis and synthesis are part of the path to awakening.
“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.”
BrokenBones
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am

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

Post by BrokenBones »

Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Jun 24, 2021 9:05 pm
BrokenBones wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 11:55 pm It has probably been said before but the Theravada Abhidhamma is sectarian. One party manifesto among many others... the fact that it is still extant doesn't alter the fact that it is just one splinter groups attempt to redefine the Buddha's teachings down to the last atom.
I doubt the Elders of any of the early Buddhist schools thought that what they were doing was "redefining" the Dhamma. Why do you impute such nefarious intentions into the monks and nuns of old? It's almost as if you view them with disdain.
1. Don't downgrade the suttas or insinuate that they are in any way deficient and needing clarification.
I find this bizarre. Plenty of people when the Buddha was alive needed clarification of what he was teaching. The same has been true of nearly all people through the ages.
The bizarre thing is the Abhidhamma disrespect of the suttas.

This idea of the 'ancients' is just an appeal to emotion & authority.

Imagine ajahn Brahm, mahasi sayadaw, ajahn thanissaro's or even the great ajahn Chah's articles and books being upgraded to be part of the official canon... in a thousand years people would be making the same argument you're trying to make... no conflict there 🤔
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

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

Post by Ceisiwr »

BrokenBones wrote: Fri Jun 25, 2021 12:05 am
The bizarre thing is the Abhidhamma disrespect of the suttas.
I’m amazed that you think Ven. Bodhi disrespects the suttas.
This idea of the 'ancients' is just an appeal to emotion & authority.
Of course it’s an appeal to authority, just like how appeals to the suttas are appeals to authority. Respect for the monks and nuns, especially elders, has always been a part of Buddhism since the very beginning. Perhaps you didn’t realise this before signing up.
“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.”
BrokenBones
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am

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

Post by BrokenBones »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Jun 25, 2021 7:06 am
BrokenBones wrote: Fri Jun 25, 2021 12:05 am
The bizarre thing is the Abhidhamma disrespect of the suttas.
I’m amazed that you think Ven. Bodhi disrespects the suttas.
This idea of the 'ancients' is just an appeal to emotion & authority.
Of course it’s an appeal to authority, just like how appeals to the suttas are appeals to authority. Respect for the monks and nuns, especially elders, has always been a part of Buddhism since the very beginning. Perhaps you didn’t realise this before signing up.
No idea what you mean about Ven. Bodhi... of course he respects the suttas.

Yes I do appeal to the authority of the suttas... they make all other 'authorities' redundant.

I have utmost respect for monks & nuns I meet... especially if they align themselves with the suttas... if they introduce Abhidhammic teachings as well then I ignore that aspect.

If a monk or nun is wholly dependent in their teachings on the Abhidhamma then I avoid reading/listening to their teachings whilst still respecting their status in the sangha and view them worthy of dana.

Being a monk or nun now... or a thousand years ago doesn't mean I need to agree with them.

I greatly enjoy listening to certain monks/nuns elucidate the suttas using modern parlance & examples... but I always personally inspect the suttas for confirmation (thank you Ven. Bodhi).

Call it being naive if you wish but the Buddha is the only ultimate authority I allow myself... that is what I signed up to... not getting sidetracked with later teachings and tales of the 'ancients' who try passing off their teachings as words from the Buddha... at least modern teachers don't try pulling that trick (apart from the Tibetan termas 😉).
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

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

Post by Pulsar »

BrokenBones wrote 
Imagine ajahn Brahm, mahasi sayadaw, ajahn Thanissaro's or even the great ajahn Chah's articles and books being upgraded to be part of the official canon... in a thousand years people would be making the same argument you're trying to make... no conflict there.
That is quite humorous. Concerning Bhikku Bodhi, without him I could not be where I am today.
Where he made personal interpretations, he did trip at times, and he admitted that the Pali of some suttas frustrated him, yet he tried to stick by it. At times he met dead ends in Pali suttas and had to consult his Sanskrit counterparts to make sense of stuff written by sutta compilers. If BB made errors that is because he relied on some Pali suttas fabricated by abhidhammikas. DN 22 has been dealt with on this forum before. This is not an argument about BB.

Mikenz66 raised the sutta issue by quoting another 
And I think that Coëmgenu's analysis over here is very important:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=40455&start=225
That analysis says something like 
  • as if "the suttas" are the "teachings of the buddha".
This is a serious allegation. It brings the entire Pali canon under suspicion. It is not the first time someone said such things on DW. I remember once "Coffee and doughnuts", carried on for a while
"There was no Buddha, that the entire Pali canon contained material concocted by some ancient Indians"
Doughnuts went tooo far, he is gone now, thank God.
I could refute this allegation about suttas, but this is not the place. Can Mike or someone else who agrees with Mike create another thread titled "Sutta pitaka does not contain Buddha's words". That will jolt some of us, but such jolts make us advance.
To the ardent Buddhist, Sutta pitaka contains Buddha's words.
Otherwise s/he would not be here.
  • Truth is: Suttas were composed using fragments of Buddha's teachings floating around.
In some suttas his thoughts were combined with the imaginations of the abhidhammikas. 
There are two distinct strata of suttas, 1. suttas in which the message is strictly of the Buddha. 2. Suttas in which the message of Theravada abhidhamma dominated.
Abhidhamma was built on a flawed system. Dependent Origination here is of everything, DooDoot informed us.
Budddha's dealt with the Dependent Origination of Suffering.
This has been commented on this thread before.
So when BrokenBones or Retro say they understand the suttas, clearly they have figured out which suttas to base their understanding on. They are not lying. When C or Mike say they cannot understand the suttas without the aid of abhidhamma, that is because they apparently have not figured this out. I don't blame them. I went through a phase like that, so I get it.
Until someone like BB comes out and says this openly, these disputes will continue until our worlds end.
With love  :candle:
auto
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

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

Post by auto »

retrofuturist wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 2:03 am The following refutes the Theravada tradition's dramatic origin story for the Abhidhamma...
DN16 wrote:I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard to the teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed fist of a teacher who keeps some things back.
Good quote, showing how esoteric and exoteric is on same level, referring to the notion that nothing is held back. Exoteric meaning holds true on esoteric meaning in a sense teachings are deep and few understands.
I would say this quote supports abhidhamma, it helps you to understand what you wouldn't come up by yourself unless you are a prodigy.
Post Reply