What do you think?
The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi
Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi
Perhaps it’s your ignorance of the Abhidhamma and your evangelical love of Phenomenology which leads your good self to say things which contradict the master? A view which, lets face it, is merely a 20th Century Abhidhamma.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:11 am Greetings Ceisiwr,
This is not the section for that. I was just suggesting you may not wish for your evangelical love of the Abhidhamma to lead you to say things that directly contradict the Blessed One's words. Or maybe you do, it's your life, I guess.
All the best.
Metta,
Paul.
“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.”
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.”
Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi
I’m asking you, and by that I mean you so please don’t just reference Choong Mun-Keat like a mindless automaton. I know what he has to say, mostly. I’m interested in what you have to say.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:24 am, edited 1 time 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.”
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.”
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi
Greetings Ceisiwr,
Metta,
Paul.
Reow phhst.
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."
Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi
Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi
I’m asking you if an atta arises and then persists before ceasing?
“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.”
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.”
Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi
Fake news. You’ve provided the contradictions you asked for. Four, in total.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 5:46 amReal news.
The Expositor (Atthasālinī).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.
Retro posted
1) The Dhamma proclaimed by the Buddha is “clear”.Vammikasutta wrote:
“Bhikkhus, the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus is clear, open, evident, and free of patchwork.”
The Abhidhamma “complicates” the dhamma by introducing “interpretations”. Only those who understand the complicated version are capable of preaching the clear version. That’s a contradiction.
2) the dhamma is proclaimed by the Buddha is open.
Abhidamma limits “right view” only to those who understand it “their” way. They take something that is open and make it “more open” by closing it. That’s a contradiction.
3) the dhamma is evident.
If Abhidhamma compilers could see how evident the dhamma was, would they go to excessive ends interpreting it and defining it with new and technical terms? Would they go outside the original teachings to add to it, if they saw it as evident? They “enhance” the evident with what they feel is not evident in order to preach a “truer” dhamma. Another contradiction. The dhamma cannot get any “truer”. It is already as “true” as it can be.
4) the dhamma is free of patchwork
Abhidamma is patchwork. Footnotes, commentaries, etc. Are all patchwork attempts to make something already clear and evident “more clear”. They make something clear and evident, more “clear” and “more evident”, by introducing patchwork. That’s your fourth contradiction.
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi
It is not fitting to call that which is subject to stress and change “atta”.
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi
Just like saying I’ll see you at sunrise, conventionally that is fine but ultimately it’s nonsense. The sun doesn’t literally rise
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sun Jun 06, 2021 8:12 am, edited 2 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.”
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.”
Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi
In the Anguttara nikaya (14. Etadaggavaggoretrofuturist wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 5:33 am Greetings,
Curious comment, directly contradicted by the Buddha himself.
It's fine to be a fan of the Abhidhamma, but when that fanhood leads to you directly contradicting the Buddha's words it might be worth reflecting on whether you're taking it too far.Vammikasutta wrote:“Bhikkhus, the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus is clear, open, evident, and free of patchwork.”
Metta,
Paul.
Paṭhamavaggo)
it says Aggam saṃkhittena bhāsitassa vitthārena atthaṃ vibhajantānaṃ yadidaṃ mahākaccānoti.
“the foremost of those who analyze in detail
the meaning of what was stated (by me) in brief is Mahakaccana.
Bhikkhu Bodhi writes (GREAT
DISCIPLES
OF THE
BUDDHA
THEIR LIVES, THEIR
WORKS, THEIR LEGACY) :
AS A SKILLED AND VERSATILE TEACHER, the Buddha
adopted different styles of discourse to communicate the
Dhamma to his disciples. Often he would explain a teaching in
detail (vitthārena). Having introduced his topic with a short
statement or synopsis (uddesa), he would then explain it at
length (niddesa), analyzing it, drawing out its implications, and
sometimes attaching a simile (upamā) to reinforce his point.
Finally, he would restate the introductory declaration as a
conclusion (niggamana), now supported by the entire weight
of the foregoing analysis. On other occasions, however, the
Buddha would not teach in detail. Instead, he would present the
Dhamma briefly (saṅkhittena), offering only a short,
sometimes even cryptic, statement charged with a profound but
highly concentrated meaning.
The Buddha did not teach the doctrine in this way in order to
conceal an esoteric message. He used this technique because it
sometimes proved more effective than a detailed elaboration in
shaking and transforming the minds of his listeners. Although
direct explanation of the meaning may have transmitted
information more efficiently, the purpose of the teaching is not
to convey information but to lead on—to insight, higher
wisdom, and deliverance. By requiring the disciples to reflect
upon the meaning and to draw out the implications by sustained
inquiry and mutual discussion, the Buddha ensured that his
utterance would serve this purpose.
While such brief teachings would escape the understanding of
the great majority of the monks, those disciples with sharp
faculties of wisdom could readily fathom their meaning. Under
such circumstances the ordinary monks, reluctant to trouble
their Master with requests for an explanation, would turn for
clarification to the senior disciples whose comprehension of the Dhamma had already been confirmed by the Blessed One.
Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi
“Atta” is not real, since it has no sabhāva. An atta does not rise nor cease, since it doesn’t exist nor not exist.
“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.”
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.”
Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi
Most of the suttas are conventional. Most of the Abhidhamma is ultimate. The final analysis of experience, where any notions of substance metaphysics or a self are systematically erased. Tradition says it was taught by the Blessed One. I’m open to the idea that it was taught by subsequent Arahants.
“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.”
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.”
Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi
Atta, being not real, arises; having arisen it ceases completely. It is a result of previous action, but there is no doer.
Cf. SA 335: "Emptiness in its Ultimate Meaning".
Cf. SA 335: "Emptiness in its Ultimate Meaning".
- Attachments
-
- Pages 95-6 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf
- (155.27 KiB) Downloaded 58 times
Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi
Do a rabbit's horns also arise and cease?
This "Atta, being not real, arises; having arisen it ceases completely. It is a result of previous action, but there is no doer " sounds like pure mahayana.