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.
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.