zan wrote: ↑Sun Sep 05, 2021 7:50 pm
Ontheway wrote: ↑Sun Sep 05, 2021 5:58 pm
zan wrote: ↑Sun Sep 05, 2021 5:49 pm
Didn't know this! Thanks for sharing!
So entirely "disproving" the Abhidhamma using the suttas would also necessitate disproving the suttas, and Vinaya, and so the entire Pali canon. Thus, it cannot be done. That wraps that up nicely. Again, showing that small parts of Abhidhamma may be late is possible, but entirely disproving it is quite impossible, as it's part of the suttas and Vinaya.
But it is happening today. People starting to dismiss Suttas.
...
You're absolutely correct. The trend is to foist Mahayana, or other non traditional Buddhism interpretations of the Dhamma onto the Pali Canon and claim they are the true, correct interpretations, and when people present suttas or abhidhamma to disprove them, they say the suttas or abhidhamma that disprove their position are not legitimate, while hypocritically saying that the suttas that support them are legitimate. It is laughably flimsy, yet it continues.
Either the suttas are authoritative, or they're not. Cherry picking to support whatever one's personal interpretation is is underhanded and ultimately not a valid position. Once one has cast doubt on so many suttas to avoid their position being discredited as obviously incorrect and ruled out by the Buddha, they have also cast doubt on their own argument, since it uses suttas from the same source.
For me, it is simple to see whether the monks or so-called Buddhist teachers upholding the true Dhamma or not.
When being questioned, they become eel-wriggling and distorting terminology here and there, mixing personal judgment with Buddha's teachings. Or claiming to achieve certain attainment yet it is totally in contrast with what Buddha taught. That is a first sign of misguided teachers.
Then, if they rejected the Atthakatha yet create a whole new interpretation that is no way accord to Nikayas, or borrow ideas from other religions, or claimed that certain Suttas are fake but some are real, without solid scientific evidence, as if they were with the Teacher. To me, that is a second sign.
Third, a monk or Buddhist leader claimed to hold Nikayas as supreme authority, yet when comes to detailed exposition, he/she invent new ideas or play guess or personal belief that originated from wrong views. That for me is another sign too.
No doubt they are many such people in the world. I avoid them at best. As the Buddha taught: "Asevana ca balanam" in Mangala Sutta.