Those rejecting Abhidhamma Pitaka itself (regardless of commentaries) are not actual Theravadins (nor Vibhajjavadins)

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 1434
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Those rejecting Abhidhamma Pitaka itself (regardless of commentaries) are not actual Theravadins (nor Vibhajjavadins)

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

According to "progressive Theravada" or more commonly, "Modern Theravada" or "Early Buddhism"
https://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?ti ... _Theravada



Those who reject Abhidhamma Pitaka itself (regardless of commentaries) are not actual Theravadins (nor Vibhajjavadins), according to this:
  • ... if we look at the earliest definitions of Buddhism, we see that Early Buddhism without the Commentaries was called Theravada:
    Without getting into a discussion of all the various early schools, If we look at a quick timeline of what Buddhism was called, early Buddhism before the Commentaries was called Theravada:
    * The time of the Buddha: "Buddhism" is called Dhamma-Vinaya
    * First Council: Dhamma-Vinaya (483 BCE)
    * Second Council: Dhamma-Vinaya (350 BCE)
    * Third Council: Vibhajjavada ("doctrine of analysis") and shortly thereafter: Theravada (250 BCE)
    * Fourth Council: Theravada (100 BCE)
    The Abhidhamma became a part of the Canon at the Third Council.
    The Commentaries were written from 300 CE to 13 century CE, after the Fourth Council.
    Thus, someone who follows the "Theravada" as it was set to be from the First to Third Councils, would be a "Theravadin" although today they might be known as "Modern Theravada."
In other words, Abhidhamma pitaka is an essential component in any variant of Theravada. So, "Early Buddhism, alias Modern Theravada" if devoid of Abhidhamma Pitaka is not Theravada. Accordingly, "Early Buddhism/Modern Theravada" topics rejecting Abhidhamma Pitaka should probably belong to connections to other paths, in a "Dhamma of Theravada Buddhism" Website.

Early Buddhism without rejecting Abhidhamma Pitaka may belong to Theravada, of course.

Just thinking out loud :jumping:

:heart:
.


🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐

Self ...
  • "an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" :D ~ MN22
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 10690
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Those rejecting Abhidhamma Pitaka itself (regardless of commentaries) are not actual Theravadins (nor Vibhajjavadins

Post by Ceisiwr »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:21 pm According to "progressive Theravada" or more commonly, "Modern Theravada" or "Early Buddhism"
https://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?ti ... _Theravada

The Commentaries were written from 300 CE to 13 century CE, after the Fourth Council.
Thus, someone who follows the "Theravada" as it was set to be from the First to Third Councils, would be a "Theravadin" although today they might be known as "Modern Theravada."
The commentaries are older than 300 C.E. They likely originate in India and are ancient. The author is probably thinking of the Vimuttimagga and the Visuddhimagga etc which are based on the commentaries as well as the Paṭisambhidāmagga and the Abhidhamma texts.
Paññaṃ nappamajjeyya, saccamanurakkheyya, cāgamanubrūheyya, santimeva so sikkheyyā’ti
“One should not neglect wisdom, should preserve truth, cultivate relinquishment and train for peace.”

Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 10690
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Those rejecting Abhidhamma Pitaka itself (regardless of commentaries) are not actual Theravadins (nor Vibhajjavadins

Post by Ceisiwr »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:21 pm
Those who reject Abhidhamma Pitaka itself (regardless of commentaries) are not actual Theravadins (nor Vibhajjavadins), according to this
An easy way to approach this is to simply as what makes one a Theravādin, a Sarvāstivādin or a Suttavādin? It is their Abhidhamma/Abhidharma and commentaries or, in the case of suttavādins, the rejection of these. Someone who relies solely on the suttas and their own interpretations is not a Theravādin since the suttas are, mostly, common to all traditions. Of course, someone who is a suttavādin might find that after all of their analysis they end up agreeing with Theravāda, Sarvāstivāda or any other Buddhist tradition.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Paññaṃ nappamajjeyya, saccamanurakkheyya, cāgamanubrūheyya, santimeva so sikkheyyā’ti
“One should not neglect wisdom, should preserve truth, cultivate relinquishment and train for peace.”

Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 1434
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Those rejecting Abhidhamma Pitaka itself (regardless of commentaries) are not actual Theravadins (nor Vibhajjavadins

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:25 pm
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:21 pm According to "progressive Theravada" or more commonly, "Modern Theravada" or "Early Buddhism"
https://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?ti ... _Theravada

The Commentaries were written from 300 CE to 13 century CE, after the Fourth Council.
Thus, someone who follows the "Theravada" as it was set to be from the First to Third Councils, would be a "Theravadin" although today they might be known as "Modern Theravada."
The commentaries are older than 300 C.E. They likely originate in India and are ancient. The author is probably thinking of the Vimuttimagga and the Visuddhimagga etc which are based on the commentaries, the Paṭisambhidāmagga and the Abhidhamma texts.

Thanks for the information about commentaries.

However, the focus here is Abhidhamma Pitaka (regardless of commentaries) as a mandatory part of any Theravada.

Members of self-christianed Theravadas which reject Abhidhamma Pitaka are not theravadins, according to above quote from Dhammawiki.com . And, their discussions rejecting Abhidhamma Pitaka should belong to connections to other parhs, being on a Theravadan Website. That's the point. :thumbsup:


:heart:
.


🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐

Self ...
  • "an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" :D ~ MN22
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 10690
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Those rejecting Abhidhamma Pitaka itself (regardless of commentaries) are not actual Theravadins (nor Vibhajjavadins

Post by Ceisiwr »

If we look at discussions around the unconditioned and nibbāna we see Theravāda acknowledges only 1 unconditioned dhamma which is nibbāna which exists in its own right and is external to us, based on its Abhidhamma and commentaries. Sarvāstivāda acknowledges 3 unconditioned dhammas based on their Abhidharma and commentaries which exist externally; 2 nibbānas and space, whilst the Sautrāntikas of recognised 1 nibbāna which to them meant complete cessation, nothingness, and so was concept only. We find a similar ideas in the modern suttavādins who have grown out of Theravāda. So, yes, what makes you an adherent to x tradition is heavily dependent upon how you relate to an Abhidhamma and commentarial texts.
Paññaṃ nappamajjeyya, saccamanurakkheyya, cāgamanubrūheyya, santimeva so sikkheyyā’ti
“One should not neglect wisdom, should preserve truth, cultivate relinquishment and train for peace.”

Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 1434
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Those rejecting Abhidhamma Pitaka itself (regardless of commentaries) are not actual Theravadins (nor Vibhajjavadins

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:34 pm
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:21 pm
Those who reject Abhidhamma Pitaka itself (regardless of commentaries) are not actual Theravadins (nor Vibhajjavadins), according to this
An easy way to approach this is to simply as what makes one a Theravādin, a Sarvāstivādin or a Suttavādin? It is their Abhidhamma/Abhidharma and commentaries or, in the case of suttavādins, the rejection of these. Someone who relies solely on the suttas and their own interpretations is no a Theravādin since the suttas are, mostly, common to all traditions. Of course, someone who is a suttavādin might find that after all of their analysis they end up agreeing with Theravāda, Sarvāstivāda or any other Buddhist tradition.

Yes, Abhidhamma makes the difference.
(Vibhajjavādins > Tambapaṇṇiya > Mahāvihāra > Theravada)


:heart:
.


🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐

Self ...
  • "an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" :D ~ MN22
Mr. Seek
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 5:45 am

Re: Those rejecting Abhidhamma Pitaka itself (regardless of commentaries) are not actual Theravadins (nor Vibhajjavadins

Post by Mr. Seek »

Who recited the Abhidhamma at the first council?
Snp 5.11—"Having nothing, free of clinging: That is the island, there is no other."
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 10690
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Those rejecting Abhidhamma Pitaka itself (regardless of commentaries) are not actual Theravadins (nor Vibhajjavadins

Post by Ceisiwr »

Mr. Seek wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:53 pm Who recited the Abhidhamma at the first council?
That really has little to nothing to do with what is being discussed here. We are discussing what makes one a Theravādin, a Sarvāstivādin or a Suttavādin. We aren't discussing the origin of the Abhidhamma which, according to Theravādin tradition, came from the Buddha although not in its complete form. According to Sarvāstivāda theirs came from learned elder monks, although with the Abhidharma being thought of as being present in the sutras and so still traceable to the Buddha.
Paññaṃ nappamajjeyya, saccamanurakkheyya, cāgamanubrūheyya, santimeva so sikkheyyā’ti
“One should not neglect wisdom, should preserve truth, cultivate relinquishment and train for peace.”

Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta
Mr. Seek
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 5:45 am

Re: Those rejecting Abhidhamma Pitaka itself (regardless of commentaries) are not actual Theravadins (nor Vibhajjavadins

Post by Mr. Seek »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:57 pm
Mr. Seek wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:53 pm Who recited the Abhidhamma at the first council?
That really has little to nothing to do with what is being discussed here. We are discussing what makes one a Theravādin, a Sarvāstivādin or a Suttavādin. We aren't discussing the origin of the Abhidhamma which, according to Theravādin tradition, came from the Buddha although not in its complete form. According to Sarvāstivāda theirs came from learned elder monks, although with the Abhidharma being thought of as being present in the sutras and so still traceable to the Buddha.
Maybe the Abhidhamma has its uses, I don't know. And yeah, essentially you're right, if you want to be a cat you have to have all the features of a cat. Theravada, Theravada teachings, Theravada Abhidhamma. But then again, the same can be said about Buddhism as a whole. Many different forms of it around the globe... I don't know, just thinking out loud. :spy:
Snp 5.11—"Having nothing, free of clinging: That is the island, there is no other."
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 1434
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Those rejecting Abhidhamma Pitaka itself (regardless of commentaries) are not actual Theravadins (nor Vibhajjavadins

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

Mr. Seek wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 4:06 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:57 pm ...
... But then again, the same can be said about Buddhism as a whole. Many different forms of it around the globe... I don't know, just thinking out loud. :spy:

And, this site is not about "Many different forms of Buddhism", it's about "Dhamma of Theravada Buddhism" which, according to the context set in the OP, necessitates Abhidhamma Pitaka as one of its essential ingredients, effectively discarding Abhidhamma rejectors to the other paths.

:heart:
.


🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐

Self ...
  • "an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" :D ~ MN22
User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 7710
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Those rejecting Abhidhamma Pitaka itself (regardless of commentaries) are not actual Theravadins (nor Vibhajjavadins

Post by Sam Vara »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 5:54 pm

And, this site is not about "Many different forms of Buddhism", it's about "Dhamma of Theravada Buddhism" which, according to the context set in the OP, necessitates Abhidhamma Pitaka as one of its essential ingredients, effectively discarding Abhidhamma rejectors to the other paths.

:heart:
What about the Abhidhamma-can't-be- botherders, the Abhidhamma-tried-it-but it-was-too-difficulters, the Abhidhamma-I'll-probably-try-but-I'm-too-busy-at the momenters, and the Abhidhamma-read-it-but-disagree-with-it-but-still-see-myself-as-Theravadiners?
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 5521
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Those rejecting Abhidhamma Pitaka itself (regardless of commentaries) are not actual Theravadins (nor Vibhajjavadins

Post by cappuccino »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:21 pm Those who reject Abhidhamma … are not actual Theravadins
oh well


the teaching is difficult enough
"All men's souls are immortal, but the souls of the righteous are immortal and divine." -Socrates
Good for Your Soul
User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: Those rejecting Abhidhamma Pitaka itself (regardless of commentaries) are not actual Theravadins (nor Vibhajjavadins

Post by AlexBrains92 »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:21 pm Early Buddhism without rejecting Abhidhamma Pitaka may belong to Theravada, of course.
No, since the description of Early Buddhism is "Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and texts".

Apart from the above, you are right. I think it would be more appropriate to abandon the distinction General Theravada / Classical Theravada.
"If appeasement of desires is what is really blissful, 'desirelessness' as the appeasement of all desires would be the Supreme Bliss, and this in fact is what Nibbāna is." (Bhikkhu Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda)
Inedible
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2020 12:55 am
Location: Iowa City
Contact:

Re: Those rejecting Abhidhamma Pitaka itself (regardless of commentaries) are not actual Theravadins (nor Vibhajjavadins

Post by Inedible »

We should have a help column on the forum. Let's call it Dear Abby Dhamma.
chownah
Posts: 9097
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Those rejecting Abhidhamma Pitaka itself (regardless of commentaries) are not actual Theravadins (nor Vibhajjavadins

Post by chownah »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:34 pm
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:21 pm
Those who reject Abhidhamma Pitaka itself (regardless of commentaries) are not actual Theravadins (nor Vibhajjavadins), according to this
An easy way to approach this is to simply as what makes one a Theravādin, a Sarvāstivādin or a Suttavādin?
Indeed and the answer is obvious; it is clinging to identity view that makes one a theravadin, servastivadin, or susttavadin.
chownah
Post Reply