The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi

Discussion of Abhidhamma and related Commentaries
atipattoh
Posts: 445
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:28 am

Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi

Post by atipattoh »

thomaslaw wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 12:18 am 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".
Imo, your statement falls into this view,

‘I might not be, and it might not be mine
. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’
‘no cassaṁ, no ca me siyā, nābhavissa, na me bhavissatī’ti.
SN24.4
'might' means uncertainty, believing the concept of atta really arise and exist for a moment and ceases, because it is subjected to ceasing, so 'I will not be, and it will not be mine'.
But Buddha pointed out that it is "wrong".



Note:
My understanding of the phrase is slightly different
那會非有,那會非我所;那必將非有,那必將非我所。

There then, not be; and not ( ) is-mine. Thus, ( ) will definitely not exist (being me); ( ) will definitely not be mine.
I treat 那會 as 'at that moment' , though I don't think the translator meant to say 那會“儿”.
Dhammavamsa
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon May 24, 2021 3:57 pm

Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi

Post by Dhammavamsa »

It is true that Dhamma teachings are clear and can be realised here and now. But Buddha did not said His statement or riddles need not further exposition in certain situation.

Like the summary of Bhaddekaratta Gatha in Majjhima Nikaya. Buddha need to explain the summary in details to the bhikkhus in many Suttas. Then one time Buddha uttered the Gatha in the midst of the Sangha before going to rest his back, confused and not clear to the detailed meaning, they seek out Maha Kaccayana Arahant for further explanation. Then Maha Kaccayana Arahant gave them a sermon on this Gatha and explain the Gatha in another way that is quite different format from what the Buddha did.

Then the monks later consulted Buddha about Maha Kaccayana Arahant's explanation and commentaries. The Buddha praised Maha Kaccayana Arahant for his wisdom in explaining the Dhamma summary excellently and tell the monks accept the words of Maha Kaccayana Arahant.

Another example is Saccavibhanga Sutta in Majjhima Nikaya by Arahant Sariputta Thera. The Buddha told His fellow monks about the Dhammacakkappavatana Sutta, then praising Sariputta and Moggallana as parents of the Sangha. Then Buddha went to rest his back. After that, Sariputta Arahant, the General of Dhamma, gave the monks a sermon and further elaborate the Four Noble Truths in detail based on Dhammacakkappavatana Sutta.

There is the Cula kammavibhanga sutta, whereby Buddha uttered a summary on Kamma topic but the listener couldn't understand. Then Buddha further elaborate his previous statement.

So the same thing happened to the commentaries compiled by ancient Arahants and theras. They explain the terms and definitions in various ways to assist proper understanding. As long as they stick to the Suttas and accepted by Arahantas, I don't see why we shouldn't accept them. I think Pali commentaries are crucial because nowadays we read Suttas in English and people tend to define concepts by using modern day language or some preoccupied secular thinking, it might bring out entirely different meaning that could be wrong. Certainly nowadays Pali scholars nowadays aren't authoritative compared to the ancient theras that still using the language.
Deleted
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi

Post by DooDoot »

Dhammavamsa wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:03 pm It is true that Dhamma teachings are clear and can be realised here and now.
No. How many, such as Buddhaghosa, interpret the teachings cannot be realised here & now.
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
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi

Post by DooDoot »

Guidelines for the Abhidhamma forum
Post by retrofuturist » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:44 am

The Abhidhamma and Classical Theravada sub-forums are specialized venues for the discussion of the Abhidhamma and the classical Mahavihara understanding of the Dhamma. Within these forums the Pali Tipitaka and its commentaries are for discussion purposes treated as authoritative, and the following classification of priority, derived from the tradition itself, is accepted.

Posts that contain personal opinions and conjecture, points of view arrived at from meditative experiences, conversations with devas, blind faith in the supreme veracity of one's own teacher's point of view etc. are all regarded as off-topic, and as such, will be subject to moderator review and/or removal.
:alien:
Dhammavamsa wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:03 pm But Buddha did not said His statement or riddles need not further exposition in certain situation.
The above sounds wrong & like a personal opinion. While in the suttas monks such as Maha Kaccayana explained the Buddha's brief teachings, these monks were Arahants and, also, if their explanation was not satisfactory, the Buddha eventually explained it.
Dhammavamsa wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:03 pmAnother example is Saccavibhanga Sutta in Majjhima Nikaya by Arahant Sariputta Thera. The Buddha told His fellow monks about the Dhammacakkappavatana Sutta, then praising Sariputta and Moggallana as parents of the Sangha. Then Buddha went to rest his back. After that, Sariputta Arahant, the General of Dhamma, gave the monks a sermon and further elaborate the Four Noble Truths in detail based on Dhammacakkappavatana Sutta.
The above sounds wrong & like a personal opinion. Saccavibhanga Sutta simply contains what the Buddha already taught, such as the definition of "jati" and "marana", which refer to the "birth" & "death" of "categories of beings" ("sattanikaye").
Dhammavamsa wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:03 pmThere is the Cula kammavibhanga sutta, whereby Buddha uttered a summary on Kamma topic but the listener couldn't understand. Then Buddha further elaborate his previous statement.
The above sounds wrong & like a personal opinion. MN 135 spoken to a Brahmin student, rather than to Noble Buddhists, follows the ordinary structure of any teaching, where the subject matter is introduced in brief.
Dhammavamsa wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:03 pmSo the same thing happened to the commentaries compiled by ancient Arahants and theras.
Similar to the above, sounds wrong; unproven; unsubstantiated; person doctrine rather than Abhidhamma.
Dhammavamsa wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:03 pmCertainly nowadays Pali scholars nowadays aren't authoritative compared to the ancient theras that still using the language.
It appears one who does not know Pali cannot make the above conclusion. Also, any disputes about the Abhidhamma are not generally related to the meaning of Pali words but to interpretive issues. The Abhidhamma itself within itself separates the Sutta Teachings from the Abhidhamma Teachings and says of itself it is:
Abhidhammabhājanīya: Analysis According To Abhidhamma
Possibly actually reading & learning the Abhidhamma will be helpful for developing opinions about it.

:focus:
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
Post Reply