Inclusion of the Kathavatthu in the Abhidhamma Pitaka

Discussion of Abhidhamma and related Commentaries
Post Reply
waryoffolly
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:30 pm

Inclusion of the Kathavatthu in the Abhidhamma Pitaka

Post by waryoffolly »

This could potentially be moved to the “early buddhism” section, but it seems somewhat in between early buddhism and abhidhamma so I’m posting it here.

In a previous thread Geoff said:
Nyana wrote: Thu May 31, 2012 4:07 am Well, the post-canonical "abhidhamma" commentaries do explicitly move more and more towards greater reification of ultimately real, invariable entities. This is never explicit nor implied in the suttas, nor even in the Abhidhammapiṭaka.* So reading the post-canonical "abhidhamma" commentaries as referring to substantive entities doesn't require interpretation, it's rather explicit.

The poor ol' Abhidhammapiṭaka is rarely allowed to speak for itself: Many people are wont to read latter commentarial elaborations into anything having to do with "abhidhamma," and many others dismiss everything having to do with "abhidhamma" as equivalent to these later commentarial accretions. A more precise and accurate understanding of doctrinal development will appreciate that there are more layers to the Abhidhamma than this.


* Except for one passage in the Kathāvatthu, but it was a controversy even in Buddhaghosa's time whether or not the Kathāvatthu rightly belonged in the Abhidhammapiṭaka. Moreover, based on text-critical analysis a number of modern scholars have come to the conclusion that the Kathāvatthu was still open to additions long after the rest of the canon was considered closed.
Does anyone have references for the above claims? Specifically:
1. The claim that there was debate at the time of Buddhagosa about including the kathavatthu in the abhidhamma pitaka

2. References to scholarly text-critical work that suggests the kathavatthu was open to additions long after the usual date the abhidhamma pitaka/canon is considered closed.
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Inclusion of the Kathavatthu in the Abhidhamma Pitaka

Post by robertk »

waryoffolly wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:51 pm
Does anyone have references for the above claims? Specifically:
1. The claim that there was debate at the time of Buddhagosa about including the kathavatthu in the abhidhamma pitaka

2. References to scholarly text-critical work that suggests the kathavatthu was open to additions long after the usual date the abhidhamma pitaka/canon is considered closed.
For number 1, this is from Buddhaghosa's commentary to the Kathavatthu:
ADORATION to the Exalted One, the Arahan the perfectly
enlightened.
Seated in devaworld and surrounded by the company of
devas, he, the unrivalled person, teacher of earth and of
devas, skilled in all terms and concepts-the supreme person,
ending his discourse on designations : the ' Designation of
Human Types,' eta., set forth in outline the book of the
Points of Controversy, giving an account of ' person ' and
similar controverted points. By just the table of contents
thus laid down in delectable mansions, Moggali's son filled
out, here on earth, the full detail. Now, inasmuch as*the
way for the comment is achieved, I will comment thereon
.
Listen attentively I
After the display of the Twin-Miracle, the Exalted One
spent the rains in the city of the Thrice Ten, beneath the Coral
Tree, on the Papdukapbala Rock. (And there) making his
mother pesent0 witness, he discoursed to the assembly of
devas on matters of extra-dhamma. After he had expounded
tba Dhammasafigapi, the Vibhanga, the DhLtukathit
and the Puggala-pamatti treatises, he thought: " When in
future the turn for expounding the EathBvatthu shall arrive,
my disciple, the greatly wise Thera Tissa, son of Moggali,
having purged the blemishes that have arisen in the teaching
(s%ama), and holding a Third Gouncil will, seated in the
midst of the Order, divide this compilation into a thousand
discourses ), five hundred being assigned to his own
views (Sakavdin.s)five hundred to views of his opponents
(Paravadins)." Making occasion for this, beginning with
an eight-sectioned inquiry into the theory of ' person ' in four
questions, each of two fivefold divisions, he drew up, with
respect to the course to be adopted in all the discourses, a
table of contents in a text uncompleted by just one section
,for recitation< Then delivering in detail the remainder of
the Abhidhamma discourse, after he had spent the rains, he
descended by the jewelled stairway that was in the midst of
the gold and silver stairways from the world of devas to the
city of Sarikassa, and so accomplishing the welfare of beings,
attained Parinibbana by the nibbana-conditions without
remainder.1
and further:
At that assembly Elder Tissa, moggali's son, to avert all
bases of heresy that had arisen, and that might in the future
arise, analysed in detail the heads of discourse, by the method
which had been delivered by the Master, into 600 orthodox
statements and 600 heterodox statements, 1,000 in all, uttered
and the collection1 of the Points of Controversy, the salient
feature of which was the crushing of a11 dissentient views.
Thereupon, selecting one thousand monks who were learned
in the Three Pitakas and versed in the Four Patisambhidiis,
just as the Elder, Kassapa the Great (at the First Council,
had) recited Dhamma and Vinaya, so did he, reciting, after
purging the religion of its stains, hold the Third Council.
And in reciting the Abhidhamma, he incorporated in the
body thereof this collection, even as he uttered it.
As it is said:-" (He-i,e., the Buddha) set forth in outline
the Collection of the Points of Controversy, giving an account
of ' person ' and such controverted points. By the mere
table of contents thus laid down in delectable mansions
Moggali's son filled out, here on earth, the full detail.
sphairos
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:37 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Inclusion of the Kathavatthu in the Abhidhamma Pitaka

Post by sphairos »

Hey waryoffolly,

1. As to the canonicity of the Kathāvatthu:

"1. DhammasaIigaI)I: 13 bhlilJavlira (cf. § 134)
2. VibhaIiga: 35 bhlilJavlira
3. Dhiitukatha: 6 bhlilJavlira
4. Puggalapaiiiiatti: 5 bhlilJavlira
5. Kathiivatthu: 64 bhlilJavlira
6. Yamaka: 2000 bhlilJavlira
7. PaUhana: no figure given227
...
For the commentary says that the Vitaṇḍavādins rejected the Kathavatthu as not spoken by the Buddha
(§ 144) and replaced it by the Mahadhammahadaya, which could correspond in some way or other to the Dhammahadayavibhanga, Vibh
401-521: As 3,25-34; 8,5 (§ 139)"

(pp. 64-65)

here a reference given to: Frauwallner 1971 b: 112

"151. It is not entirely obvious why Kv has been included in the Abhidhamma-pitaka:-The' form 'of the-tex which contams discussions, is
"nearer to the 'Suttantas than'to'the-Abhidhamma: on the' other hand,
Patis(ambhidamagga) is much more a~Abhidhammat~~t" than Kv, was included
only in the Khuddakanikaya (§ 119) and not in the third Pilaka, where
it really belongs. Th e reason maybe chronology. At the time when Kv
was formed under ASoka, the four great Nikayas may have been
closed collections already, while the Abhidhamma was still open. That
had changed when Patis came into existence. If the second CE AD
is approximately correct~hen .e. Vid. en~.!. t~,~_~j>!I~d~a~aPiJ!llc~W closed as well, and only he Khudda}(anikaya remamed always
for-new--t@xts-sucn,as-Pa.is:':afid'others (§ 156)

p.71

O von Hinüber. A Handbook of Pāli Literature, 1996

regarding Vitaṇḍavādins he makes a reference later:

"Cf. As-index of proper names S.V. vitaṇḍavādins; on this sect: Bechert 195511957:
341sq. "

p. 150
(I'm very limited in time, so I haven't corrected the mistakes of the OCRd text)

Cf. also

"4.5. Kathavatthu
The Kathavatthu59
is unique among canonical Pali texts in that it is the
only one for which tradition gives us both an author and a date of composition,
because the early chronicles state60 that at the time of the third council the elder Tissa set
forth the Kathavatthuppakarana, to refute the heretical doctrines.

This led to a situation where not all the Theravadin schools accepted the
text as part of the canon, and Buddhaghosa is at pains to assert its canonical
nature in reply to the Vitandins' objections61 that it was uttered by Tissa. He
asserts that the table of contents was drawn up by the Buddha, foreseeing
that it would be elaborated by Tissa."

K.R. Norman. Pāli literature. 1983
p. 103

Regarding your second point in the same work:

"There is no indication in the Kathavatthu itself of the names of the propagators of the heresies which are being refuted. These are supplied by Buddhaghosa in his commentary,65 and it has often been pointed out66
that some of the heresies being confuted are ascribed by him to sects whose origins are usually
dated many centuries later than Asoka. There is, however, no need in principle
to assume that some of the heresies cannot be as early as the date normally
given for the composition of the Kathavatthu, simply because the schools to
which they are attributed did not exist before the first century B.C. Very few
of the heresies seem to be anything more than obvious quibbles, which the
audience to any sermon could have raised. The date of their adoption by a
recognised sect could well have been much later.
68
See Mrs RHYS DAVIDS, KV tr., p. xxxiii
"
p. 104.

In the translation of the Kathāvatthu and in the translation of the commentary to it the translators/editors point out that Vetulaka/Vaitulyaka etc. and Mahāsuññatāvāda sects are most likely Mahāyāna/prajñāpāramitā, which arose to our knowledge much later than Aśoka.
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
Post Reply