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
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

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

Post by DooDoot »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:21 pm In other words, Abhidhamma pitaka is an essential component in any variant of Theravada.
But its not because Abhidhamma can contradict sutta or the Buddha himself.

:alien:
Last edited by DooDoot on Wed Dec 02, 2020 8:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

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

Post by Aloka »

Ajahn Brahm - "Abhidhamma was not taught by the Buddha."




.




.
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 2176
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 »

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



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.


/...../


imo, today on DWT included, some people have been trying to refute Theravada Abhidhamma in various ways. And I don't think it's not weird.

What I found really funny tho' is seeing people desperate to be identified as a Theravadin, accordingly declared as a Theravadin, and at the same time trying to refute Theravada Abhidhamma, through sutta-based or otherwise.

In the light of above-quoted topic post, it would be very logical, rational and auspicious if they try to refute Theravada Abhidhamma only after their abandonment of Theravada first. :thumbsup:
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
  • Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
    V. Nanananda

𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
  • Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
    V. Buddhādasa
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10172
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 »

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



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:
Buddhism has continuously evolved, adapted and diversified, so I don't see how labels like "Theravada" and "Mahayana" can be used prescriptively or exclusively. They're more like broad designations.
For example, I think of Ajahn Chah as more Zen than Theravada.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

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

Post by asahi »

Why all labeling and naming , try to studies the contents and see what it means , what it brings , helpful or not in ending of suffering or if not interested and find it confusing just set it aside . Just like if study sutta 1 you dont get it , try study sutta 2 . If you disagree with sutta 3 , set it aside and study sutta 4 .
No bashing No gossiping
BrokenBones
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am

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

Post by BrokenBones »

Mr. Seek wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:53 pm Who recited the Abhidhamma at the first council?
Nobody... they must have forgot.
SarathW
Posts: 21234
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

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

Post by SarathW »

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.
It is very important for me.
For instance, knowing someone is in Dhammayutta Nikaya signals me that they believe Nibbana as an objective reality.
If I decided to ordain one day I don't want to be ordained under their linage.
In the same way, I don't want to be ordained under a monk who does not believe Abhidhamma as a useful text.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 3073
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

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

Post by Pondera »

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



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:
I am Theravada because I chose not to reject Abhidamma. It is because I read abhidamma that I am able to understand the suttas. Here is an example of a very important abhidamma that was first passed onto Yasadhara by a deva and then to Sariputta. I’ve memorized each word of it and therefore I am more capable than regular putthajana who thinks he can understand sublime words of the Buddha. Without further ado. Here is the very important Abhidamma (which I don’t reject. Because I am Theravada). 🧐
Compendium of Phenomena
2.2 Form
2.2.3. Exposition of Form
Chapter 1. Exposition of Form under Single Concepts
All form is that which is
not a cause,
not the concomitant of a cause,
disconnected with cause,
conditioned,
compound,
endowed with form,
mundane,
co-intoxicant,
of the Fetters,
of the Ties,
of the Floods,
of the Bonds,
of the Hindrances;
infected,
of the Graspings,
belonging to the Vices
indeterminate,
void of mental objects,
neither moral result nor productive of it,
not vicious yet belonging to the Vices,
not applied and sustained thinking,
not “applied, but only sustained thinking”,
neither “applied nor sustained thinking”,
not “accompanied by joy”,
not “accompanied by ease”,
not “accompanied by disinterestedness”,
not something capable of being got rid of either by insight or by cultivation,
not that the cause of which may be got rid of either by insight or by cultivation,
neither tending to, nor away from, the accumulation involving re-birth,
belonging neither to studentship nor to that which is beyond studentship,
of small account,
related to the universe of sense,
not related to the universe of form,
nor to that of the formless,
included,
not of the Unincluded,
not something entailing fixed retribution,
unavailing for (ethical) guidance,
apparent
cognizable by the six modes of cognition,
impermanent,
subject to decay.
Such is the category of Form considered by way of single attributes.
Chapter 2. The Category of Form Considered by Way of Dual Attributes
Positive and Negative
“There is Form which is Derived”
What is that form which is derived?
The spheres of …
vision
hearing
smell,
taste,
body sensibility;
the sphere of …
sights,
odours,
sounds
tastes;
woman-faculty,
man-faculty,
life-faculty,
intimation by …
act,
speech;
the element of space;
the buoyancy of form,
plasticity of form,
wieldiness of form,
integration of form,
maintenance of form,
decay of form,
impermanence of form,
solid nutriment.
What is that form which is the sphere of vision?
The eye, that is to say the sentient organ, derived from the Great Phenomena, included in the self-state, nature of the self, invisible and reacting—by which eye, invisible and reacting, one has seen, sees, will, or may see form that is visible and impingeing—
this that is sight,
the sphere of sight,
the element of vision,
the faculty of vision,
this that is:
“the world”,
“a door”,
“an ocean”,
“lucent”,
“a field”,
“a basis”,
“a guide”,
“guidance”,
the “hither shore”,
an “empty village”
—this is that form which constitutes the sphere of vision.
What is that form which is the sphere of vision?
The eye, that is to say the sentient organ, derived from the four Great Phenomena, included in the self-state, invisible and reacting, and against which eye, invisible and reacting, form that is visible and impingeing, has impinged, impinges, will, or may impinge—this that is
sight,
the sphere of sight,
the constituent element of sight,
etc.
continue as in §597.
What is that form which is the sphere of vision?
The eye, that is to say the sentient organ, derived from the four Great Phenomena, included in the self-state, invisible and reacting, which eye, invisible and reacting, has impinged, impinges, will, or may impinge on form that is visible and impingeing—this that is
sight,
the sphere of sight,
etc.
continue as in §597.
What is that form which is the sphere of vision?
The eye, that is to say the sentient organ, derived from the four Great Phenomena, included in the self-state, invisible and reacting,
(i.) depending on which eye, in consequence of some visible form, there has arisen, arises, will, or may arise
visual contact; …
(ii.) and depending on which eye, in consequence of some visible form, there has arisen, arises, will, or may arise—(born of that visual contact)
a feeling …
[or iii.] a perception …
[or iv.] thinking …
[or v.] a visual cognition …
[further, vi.] depending on which eye, and having a visible form as its object, there has arisen, arises, will, or may arise
visual contact,
(vii.) and depending on which eye, and having a visible form as its object, there has arisen, arises, will, or may arise, born of that visual contact,
a feeling …
[or viii.] a perception …
[or ix.] thinking …
[or x.] visual cognition
—this that is sight, the sphere of sight, etc.
Continue as in §597.
What is that form which is the sphere of hearing?
The ear, that is to say the sentient organ, derived from the four Great Phenomena, forming part of the nature of the self, invisible and reacting,
by which ear, invisible and reacting, one has heard, hears, will, or may hear sound that is invisible and reacting;
against which ear, invisible and reacting, sound that is invisible and impingeing, has impinged, impinges, will, or may impinge;
which ear, invisible and reacting, has impinged, impinges, will, or may impinge on sound that is invisible and reacting;
depending on which ear, in consequence of a sound, there has arisen, arises, will, or may arise:
auditory contact; …
and, depending on which ear, in consequence of a sound, there has arisen, arises, will, or may arise, born of that auditory contact,
a feeling …
[or] a perception …
[or] thinking …
[or] auditory cognition;
—[further] depending on which ear, and having a sound as its object, there has arisen, arises, will, or may arise
auditory contact; …
and, depending on which ear, and having a sound as its object, there has arisen, arises, will, or may arise, born of that auditory contact,
a feeling …
[or] a perception …
[or] thinking …
[or] auditory cognition;
—this that is
hearing,
the sphere of hearing,
the constituent element of hearing,
the faculty of hearing,
—this that is
“the world”,
“a door”,
“an ocean”,
“lucent”,
“a field”,
“a basis”,
“the hither shore”,
“an empty village”
—this is that form which is the sphere of hearing.
What is that form which is the sphere of smell?
The nose, that is to say the sentient organ, derived from the four Great Phenomena, forming part of the nature of the self, invisible and reacting,
by which nose, invisible and reacting, one has smelt, smells, will, or may smell odour that is invisible and reacting;
against which nose, invisible and reacting, odour that is invisible and reacting, has impinged, impinges, will, or may impinge;
which nose, invisible and reacting, has impinged, impinges, will, or may impinge on odour that is invisible and reacting;
depending on which nose, in consequence of an odour … depending on which nose, and having an odour as its object, there has arisen, arises, will, or may arise:
olfactory contact,
and, depending on which nose, in consequence of an odour … depending on which nose, and having an odour as its object, there has arisen, arises, will or may arise, born of that olfactory contact,
a feeling …
[or] a perception …
[or] thinking …
[or] olfactory cognition;
—this that is smell, the sphere, the constituent element, the faculty, of smell, this that is—
“a world”,
etc.
continue as in §604.
As you can see, it is so helpful. Not too long. Very useful. So easy for remembering too. It helps me so much to understand all the sutta. Without it I would be stupid putthajana. Before I read this I thought I understand Buddha talk. Now I realize I was fool. Not Theravada. Let’s all do meditation on it. If you don’t read it, you are just amateur fake Buddha quote freak.
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 2176
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 »

Pondera wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:23 am ...
...
As you can see, it is so helpful. Not too long. Very useful. So easy for remembering too. It helps me so much to understand all the sutta. Without it I would be stupid putthajana. Before I read this I thought I understand Buddha talk. Now I realize I was fool. Not Theravada. Let’s all do meditation on it. If you don’t read it, you are just amateur fake Buddha quote freak.

Congrats. I agree it's helpful & useful. And, interesting & deep. A single entry should deserve detailed contemplation. However, for me, unsurprisingly for a pali illiterate lay-man, it is very difficult to remember verbatim; accordingly deep respects occur to me to the monks who preserved these teachings for millennia. So, again, big congrats to your memory & wisdom. And, thank you very much for daring to voice right speech.

:anjali:
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
  • Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
    V. Nanananda

𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
  • Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
    V. Buddhādasa
Dhammavamsa
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon May 24, 2021 3:57 pm

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

Post by Dhammavamsa »

Learning the Buddhism history gave me a clearer picture on how it evolves through time.

First Council: Only Arahants present (Suttas & Vinaya were recited by Arahant Ananda and Arahant Upali respectively) ->

Second Council: Only Arahants present (Suttas, Vinaya, some books on Abhidhamma), accompanied by schism, new school arise ->

Third Council: Only Arahants present (Sutta, Vinaya, Abhidhamma established, thus Pali Tipitaka) heresies refuted, Vibhajjavada stays faithful original as commented by Arahant Moggaliputta Tissa and his fellow Arahant monks, later Arahant Mahinda Thera brought these teachings to Sri Lanka and thus establishing Mahavihara the authoritative centre of Buddha Dhamma propagation->

Fourth Council (Pali Tipitaka written on leaves for preservation, based on the Pali canon brought over by Arahant Mahinda Thera and other Arahants, all Pali Tipitaka together with ancient commentaries were inherited. And they put a full stop to it and no more edition) ->

(In Sri Lanka, two heretical sects: Abhayagiri and the later Jeta sect, arose in Sri Lanka and carried Vetulya doctrine or Mahayana teachings, and promoting newly invented Sanskrit texts with Pali scriptures. These two sects done many inappropriate things. Mahavihara dwellers, facing oppression from misguided king, fled and continue preservation of original Pali oral texts and Sinhalese commentaries inherited from Arahant Mahinda and other Arahant monks in the past. When the misguided king fallen, a new king realised the grave mistake and restored the glory of Mahavihara. Then Mahaviharavasins started to compile the Sinhalese commentaries back to Magadhan language so that it can stands for the test of time.)

Fifth council (Burma organized it by themselves, without other countries' monks, some new addition is done) ->

Sixth council (Burma again sponsored it, but invited all other buddhist countries' learned monks together with western representative monk such as Ven Nyanatiloka and Ven Nyanaponika.)

So I think the true Pali texts and the correct teachings were preserved up to fourth Council by Mahaviharavins, in which they are the followers of Arahant lineage that can be traced back to the Buddha's time.
Deleted
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

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

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings SDA,
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 2:23 am So, again, big congrats to your memory & wisdom. And, thank you very much for daring to voice right speech.
I think you'll find that Pondera was, as it's called in these parts, "taking the piss".

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
robertk
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

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

Post by robertk »

BrokenBones wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 5:55 am
Mr. Seek wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:53 pm Who recited the Abhidhamma at the first council?
Nobody... they must have forgot.
In the Atthasalini by Buddhaghosa it says
Unto the spirits taught., he afterwards,
The Leader, told it all in form concise^
To Sariputta Elder, when he waited on The Sage at Anotatta lake.^ And what The Elder heard, he brought to plains of earth And taught it to the brethren. And they all Remembered it. And when the Council met [the FIRST COUNCIL].
By the wise son of the Videhi Dame'[Ananda] It was again rehearsed
Thus according to this account the Abhidhamma (with the exception of the Katthavathu) was recited by Ananda at the first council.
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 3073
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

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

Post by Pondera »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 2:23 am
Pondera wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:23 am ...
...
As you can see, it is so helpful. Not too long. Very useful. So easy for remembering too. It helps me so much to understand all the sutta. Without it I would be stupid putthajana. Before I read this I thought I understand Buddha talk. Now I realize I was fool. Not Theravada. Let’s all do meditation on it. If you don’t read it, you are just amateur fake Buddha quote freak.

Congrats. I agree it's helpful & useful. And, interesting & deep. A single entry should deserve detailed contemplation. However, for me, unsurprisingly for a pali illiterate lay-man, it is very difficult to remember verbatim; accordingly deep respects occur to me to the monks who preserved these teachings for millennia. So, again, big congrats to your memory & wisdom. And, thank you very much for daring to voice right speech.

:anjali:
Hmm 🤔 this is sarcasm, right? Because everything I wrote (right down to the broken English) was complete and utter irony.

The quote is EXCESSIVELY long; a mere FRACTION of the whole thing; IMPOSSIBLE to remember; reads like a DICTIONARY; doesn’t EXPLAIN a thing (ie. it is just a LIST) - and ON AND ON.

I really must apologize that you couldn’t see I was joking. I appreciate your contributions to this forum. But I am not a fan of the abhidamma.

The Buddha has said in the simile of the raft that even the dhamma must be let go of when the other shore is reached.

If The Buddha Dhamma is a raft, then the Abhidamma is a freaking OIL TANKER.

Good luck crossing the river on your OIL TANKER! :jawdrop:
Last edited by Pondera on Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
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: Those rejecting Abhidhamma Pitaka itself (regardless of commentaries) are not actual Theravadins (nor Vibhajjavadins

Post by Pondera »

retrofuturist wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:13 am Greetings SDA,
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 2:23 am So, again, big congrats to your memory & wisdom. And, thank you very much for daring to voice right speech.
I think you'll find that Pondera was, as it's called in these parts, "taking the piss".

Metta,
Paul. :)
Hmm 🧐 that’s what I thought too. But maybe not 🤔 hahaha. Yeah yeah. I was (as the brits say) “taking the piss” out of you.

No hard feelings. :rofl:
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: Those rejecting Abhidhamma Pitaka itself (regardless of commentaries) are not actual Theravadins (nor Vibhajjavadins

Post by Dhammavamsa »

robertk wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:20 am
BrokenBones wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 5:55 am
Mr. Seek wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:53 pm Who recited the Abhidhamma at the first council?
Nobody... they must have forgot.
In the Atthasalini by Buddhaghosa it says
Unto the spirits taught., he afterwards,
The Leader, told it all in form concise^
To Sariputta Elder, when he waited on The Sage at Anotatta lake.^ And what The Elder heard, he brought to plains of earth And taught it to the brethren. And they all Remembered it. And when the Council met [the FIRST COUNCIL].
By the wise son of the Videhi Dame'[Ananda] It was again rehearsed
Thus according to this account the Abhidhamma (with the exception of the Katthavathu) was recited by Ananda at the first council.
But the Western scholars will reject it. Or Western monks will also reject it.

But still, Arahants in those times approved of it. What are those modern people to dispute with them?
Deleted
Post Reply