In which way the Sutta Central Project is another Abhidhamma project?

[SarathW]

In which way the Sutta Central Project is another Abhidhamma project?

I should clarify he (Ven. Sujato) does reject the Theravadin Abhidhamma, in toto it seems. Rather he (Ven Sujato) is aware that his project is a form of Abhidhamma, as in seeking to explain and expand on the suttas. To draw out the meaning as it were.

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=40455&start=30

I can't see how the Sutta Central project is another Abhidhamma project.
This is just an attempt by Ven. Sujato to cover himself from the criticism of his rejection of Abhidhamma.
For instance, can we say that Dhamma Wheel is another Abhidhamma project?
Does that mean I have to reject Ven. Sujato's Abhidhamma?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Interesting. I thought that the classification for works that are "seeking to explain and expand on the suttas" was Atthakathā (i.e. commentary), not Abhidhamma.

Metta,
Paul.

[DNS]

Greetings,

Interesting. I thought that the classification for works that are "seeking to explain and expand on the suttas" was Atthakathā (i.e. commentary), not Abhidhamma.

Metta,
Paul.

I agree with Paul. It sounds more like a commentary, in this case, a modern commentary, as opposed to the older Theras' commentaries.

Abhidhamma has the title or label akin to scripture for Theravada, the rest after that is commentaries.

[Ceisiwr]

Sujato himself recognises that what he is doing is Abhidhamma. Commentary looks to explain, and we see some of this in the Abhidhamma (the Vibangha comes to mind), so in a sense Abhidhamma is a kind of proto-commentary. What’s different is that it’s more systematic. The commentaries explain pieces of texts whilst the Abhidhamma explains the whole Dhamma. Sujato doesn’t see much of a structure to explain at all, but still even he has to make some systematic connections.

[Ceisiwr]

we see some of this in the Abhidhamma (the Vibangha comes to mind), so in a sense Abhidhamma is a kind of proto-commentary. What’s different is that it’s more systematic. The commentaries explain pieces of texts whilst the Abhidhamma explains the whole Dhamma.

The above sounds like nonsense because the Vibangha often contradicts the Suttas, such as in its ideas about the Noble Truths and Dependent Origination (which i have posted a number of times now).

Criticism of the Abhidhamma isn’t allowed here.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Criticism of the Abhidhamma isn’t allowed here.

Inquiring how it reconciles with Sutta is.

However, since the post in question went beyond mere inquiry, it shall be removed.



Metta,
Paul.

[DooDoot]

Criticism of the Abhidhamma isn’t allowed here.

I do not recalling posting any "criticism". This forum takes Abhidhamma as "authoritative". If Abhidhamma contradicts Sutta then this forum takes Abhidhamma as "authoritative".

[Ceisiwr]

Greetings,

Criticism of the Abhidhamma isn’t allowed here.

Inquiring how it reconciles with Sutta is.

However, since the post in question went beyond mere inquiry, it shall be removed.



Metta,
Paul.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Criticism of the Abhidhamma isn’t allowed here.

I do not recalling posting any "criticism". This forum takes Abhidhamma as "authoritative". If Abhidhamma contradicts Sutta then this forum takes Abhidhamma as "authoritative".

Actually, from the Guidelines...

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.

1. Sutta: "the well-said" = the three baskets of the Tipiṭaka.
2. Suttānuloma: "the according with the well-said" = a direct inference from the Tipiṭaka.
3. Atthakathā: "treatise on the meaning" = an ancient commentary.
4. Attanomati: "personal opinion" = the expositions and views of later generations of teachers.

These forums are for the benefit of those members who wish to develop a deeper understanding of these texts and are not for the challenging of the Abhidhamma and/or Theravada commentarial literature.

Metta,
Paul.

[DooDoot]

Abhidhamma explains the whole Dhamma.

So how is Abhidhamma saying craving alone is the "samudaya" of dukkha explaining the "whole dhamma" when the Suttas say the entire twelve conditions of Dependent Origination are the "samudaya" of suffering? How can the "whole" twelve become "one" and the "one" whole become the unwhole twelve? Thanks