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?
SteRo
Posts: 4029
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: अ धीः

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

Post by SteRo »

What's the use of apprehending self as "Theravadin"?

That said theravada proper certainly has tipitaka doctrine. But since "theravada" is not registered it is open to be applied to this or that as is the case with "buddhism".
Exhaling अ and inhaling धीः amounts to བྷྲཱུཾ་བི་ཤྭ་བི་ཤུད་དྷེ It's definitely not science but science may provide guidelines nevertheless.
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 »

Sam Vara wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 6:16 pm
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?

These er-er-er-ers don't make Abhidhamma Pitaka mutilated from Theravada :smile:
When mutilated, it becomes other paths, not theravada, according to quote from op.

A rose by any other name would still be a rose.
However, any other flower in the name of rose would not become a rose.

:heart:
.


🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐

Self ...
  • "an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" :D ~ MN22
Spiny Norman
Posts: 8059
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

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

Post by Spiny Norman »

Why are people so concerned with who is "proper" Theravada? It makes it sound like an exclusive club.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
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: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:57 am
These er-er-er-ers don't make Abhidhamma Pitaka mutilated from Theravada :smile:
When mutilated, it becomes other paths, not theravada, according to quote from op.

A rose by any other name would still be a rose.
However, any other flower in the name of rose would not become a rose.

:heart:
I'm not sure I understand this. You can't mutilate something from something; you can remove something, leaving the remaining part mutilated. Are you (or is someone else?) claiming that Theravada without Abhidhamma is mutilated? Or that Abhidhamma is mutilated without the other Pitakas? If the former, must one actively reject the Abhidhamma, as opposed to merely not bothering with it?
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 »

Spiny Norman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 10:39 am Why are people so concerned with who is "proper" Theravada? It makes it sound like an exclusive club.
Yes, I've got my matches ready to burn some heretics, but I can't work out who they are yet.
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 »

Sam Vara wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:59 pm
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:57 am
These er-er-er-ers don't make Abhidhamma Pitaka mutilated from Theravada :smile:
When mutilated, it becomes other paths, not theravada, according to quote from op.

A rose by any other name would still be a rose.
However, any other flower in the name of rose would not become a rose.

:heart:
I'm not sure I understand this. You can't mutilate something from something; you can remove something, leaving the remaining part mutilated. Are you (or is someone else?) claiming that Theravada without Abhidhamma is mutilated? Or that Abhidhamma is mutilated without the other Pitakas? If the former, must one actively reject the Abhidhamma, as opposed to merely not bothering with it?
I don’t necessarily think you have to read the Abhidhamma or the commentaries. If you broadly agree with their interpretation of the Dhamma then it works out the same. For example, accepting only 1 unconditioned element that is distinct from samsara. If you accept 3 then you are more of a Sarvāstivādin.
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
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 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 2:01 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:59 pm
I'm not sure I understand this. You can't mutilate something from something; you can remove something, leaving the remaining part mutilated. Are you (or is someone else?) claiming that Theravada without Abhidhamma is mutilated? Or that Abhidhamma is mutilated without the other Pitakas? If the former, must one actively reject the Abhidhamma, as opposed to merely not bothering with it?
I don’t necessarily think you have to read the Abhidhamma or the commentaries. If you broadly agree with their interpretation of the Dhamma then it works out the same. For example, accepting only 1 unconditioned element that is distinct from samsara. If you accept 3 then you are more of a Sarvāstivādin.
What about if people have never even heard of these concepts? I know quite a lot of lifelong Thai and Sri Lankan Buddhists for whom this would be rather abstruse. They are aware of the Abhidhamma, of course, but just don't think it's for them. But most people would say they are Theravadin.
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 5782
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

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

Post by Dhammanando »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:57 am A rose by any other name would still be a rose.
However, any other flower in the name of rose would not become a rose.
Until people decided that it had. Then 'rose' would simply have come to denote a different referent.

Adhammasammataṃ kho pana, vāseṭṭha, tena samayena hoti, tadetarahi dhammasammataṃ.

“What at that time, Vāseṭṭha, was agreed to be adhamma, is now agreed to be dhamma.”
(Aggañña Sutta)
Anabhirati kho, āvuso, imasmiṃ dhammavinaye dukkhā, abhirati sukhā.

“To not delight in this dhammavinaya, friend, is painful; to delight in it is bliss.”
(Sukhasutta, AN 10:66)
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 »

Sam Vara wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:59 pm
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:57 am
These er-er-er-ers don't make Abhidhamma Pitaka mutilated from Theravada :smile:
When mutilated, it becomes other paths, not theravada, according to quote from op.

A rose by any other name would still be a rose.
However, any other flower in the name of rose would not become a rose.

:heart:
I'm not sure I understand this. You can't mutilate something from something; you can remove something, leaving the remaining part mutilated. Are you (or is someone else?) claiming that Theravada without Abhidhamma is mutilated? Or that Abhidhamma is mutilated without the other Pitakas? If the former, must one actively reject the Abhidhamma, as opposed to merely not bothering with it?

If you don't reject abhidhamma pitaka as Theravada teachings, then ok.

:heart:
.


🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐

Self ...
  • "an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" :D ~ MN22
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 »

Dhammanando wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 2:26 pm
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:57 am A rose by any other name would still be a rose.
However, any other flower in the name of rose would not become a rose.
Until people decided that it had. Then 'rose' would simply have come to denote a different referent.

Adhammasammataṃ kho pana, vāseṭṭha, tena samayena hoti, tadetarahi dhammasammataṃ.

“What at that time, Vāseṭṭha, was agreed to be adhamma, is now agreed to be dhamma.”
(Aggañña Sutta)

Excellent point, Venerable.
I quoted from Dhamma wiki.

:heart:
.


🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐

Self ...
  • "an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" :D ~ MN22
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 »

Why would one want to be christianed as Theravadin if he thinks his ideology is better than accepted Theravada approach? Why would that one want to be regarded as Theravadin (or at least, is unable to accept when others point out that his understandings are not of Theravadin, even though he may sometimes proudly himself label as Madhyamakan or progressive or reformist or EBT-ist or whatever)?

May be because he thinks the name "Theravada" is cool (the state which other major traditions no longer enjoy themselves in logical manner, these days) & accordingly he just wants to associate the cool term with his-vada; or just to get attention on a Theravada forum; or to proselytize about his own ideology in disguise of a threavadin; or may act like a Trojan Horse in that to get 007 like liscense to kill and transform pali scriptures whenever the pali is beyond one's wisdom, ending up making nonsensical allegations that "so and so entry" of pali canon is wrong, saying "c'mon, why don't we fix the canon according to my liking, because we are theravadins as well, aren't we? And, let's remove Abhidhamma Pitaka, we're theravadins after all" :lol:
.


🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐

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: Mon Nov 30, 2020 2:29 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:59 pm
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:57 am
These er-er-er-ers don't make Abhidhamma Pitaka mutilated from Theravada :smile:
When mutilated, it becomes other paths, not theravada, according to quote from op.

A rose by any other name would still be a rose.
However, any other flower in the name of rose would not become a rose.

:heart:
I'm not sure I understand this. You can't mutilate something from something; you can remove something, leaving the remaining part mutilated. Are you (or is someone else?) claiming that Theravada without Abhidhamma is mutilated? Or that Abhidhamma is mutilated without the other Pitakas? If the former, must one actively reject the Abhidhamma, as opposed to merely not bothering with it?

If you don't reject abhidhamma pitaka as Theravada teachings, then ok.

:heart:
What about if you neither reject nor accept it, but are Theravadin in other respects? How is actively rejecting it different from not accepting it? Is a person who has once read the Dhammapada, owns a Buddha statue, and does ten minutes meditation every day but doesn't reject the Abhidhamma because they have never read it, more of a Theravadin than anyone in the world who rejects the Abhidhamma?
User avatar
rhinoceroshorn
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 01, 2020 7:27 pm

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

Post by rhinoceroshorn »

Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu once said he has never read Abhidhamma.
I read many of his books and listened to many of his dhammatalks and never heard him use the Abhidhammic terminology. Yet they are absolutely comprehensible and helpful.
I guess he doesn't care if he is or isn't a Theravadin. :shrug:
Eyes downcast, not footloose,
senses guarded, with protected mind,
not oozing — not burning — with lust,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.
Sutta Nipāta 1.3 - Khaggavisana Sutta
Image
See, Ānanda! All those conditioned phenomena have passed, ceased, and perished. So impermanent are conditions, so unstable are conditions, so unreliable are conditions. This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.
Dīgha Nikāya 17
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 »

rhinoceroshorn wrote: Wed Dec 02, 2020 4:51 pm Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu once said he has never read Abhidhamma.
I read many of his books and listened to many of his dhammatalks and never heard him use the Abhidhammic terminology. Yet they are absolutely comprehensible and helpful.
I guess he doesn't care if he is or isn't a Theravadin. :shrug:

In this context of the OP, your stance is acceptable enough. :thumbsup:

:heart:


And, btw, do you happen by any chance find absolutely comprehensible and helpful regarding some teachings which some regard as eternalistic? These may be probably due to the very point you said above about the venerable: https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.p ... 17#p329417
.


🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐

Self ...
  • "an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" :D ~ MN22
dharmacorps
Posts: 1367
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 7:33 pm

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

Post by dharmacorps »

What about the arahants who didn't have much use for the abhidhamma? Let them know they have mutilated the path.
Post Reply