Abhidhamma: word of Buddha?

[robertk]

I saw some debate about this on a different thread:

The orthodox Theravada position is that Abhidhamma- even the Katthavathu -is the word of the Buddha:

The atthasalini (Commentary on the Dhammasangani ,trns THe Expositor p.8) by Buddhaghosa discusses suttas that are part of the canon that are not spoken directly by the Buddha:

Bhikkhus, learned is Mahăkaccãna, profoundly wise is Mahăkaccãna. II you had asked me the same question, I would have ariswered exactly as he has done.' Thus since the time when the Teacher gave his approval, the whole Suttanta became the word o1 the Buddha. And it is the same with the Suttas expounded by Ananda and others.
'thus in teaching the seven books, when he came to the Kathãvatthu the Buddha laid down the table of contents in the way mentioned above. In doing ao he foresaw that two hundred and eighteen years after his death, Tisaa, Moggali’ø son, seated in the midst of one thousand Bhikkhus, would elaborate the Kathavathu as is stated above. And 'Tissa Mogali son, expounded the book not by his own knowledge but according to the table of contents laid down, as well as by the method given, by the 'teacher. hence the entire book became the word of the Buddha. Thus the Abhidhamma consists of seven books inclusive of the Kathavathu.

also:

The textual order of the .Abhidhamma originated with Sariputta ; the numerical series in the break Book was also determined by him. In this way the Elder, without spoiling the unique doctrine, laid down the numerical series in order
*to make it easy to learn, remember, study and teach the Law. Such being the case, was the Elder the very first to understand the Abhidhamma ? Nay, it was the Supreme Buddha who first understood the Abhidhamma. For he, seated on the throne under the Wisdom Tree, penetrated if and became the Buddha

[robertk]

Some encourgement on the benefits of learning the profound Abhidhamma:

Again the bhikkhus, who study the Abhidhamma, experience infinite rapturous joy in reflecting. As though grouping the multitude of stars in the sky (into constellations). ie Teacher taught things mental and material, dividing them into various parts and portions—things subtle and abstruse such as the unique° content of aggregates, sense-organs, elements, controlling Faculties, powers, factors of wisdom, kamma and its result ; and the distinction between mind and matter

from the Expositor.


Also the Expositor p.37

He who prohibits (the teaching of) Abhidhamma gives a blow to the Wheel of the Conqueror, denies omniscience, subverts the Teacher’s knowledge full of confidence, deceives the audience, obstructs the path of the Ariyas, manifests himself as advocating one' of the eighteen causes of dissension in the Order, is capable of doing acts for which the doer is liable to be ex- communicated, or admonished,' Or scorned (by the Order), and should be dismissed after the particular act of excommuni-cation, admonition, or scorn, and reduced to living on scraps of food.

[mabw]

Forgive my ignorance, Expositor? Do you mean Buddhaghosa?

[robertk]

Forgive my ignorance, Expositor? Do you mean Buddhaghosa?

Yes see my first post:

"The atthasalini (Commentary on the Dhammasangani ,trns THe Expositor p.8) by Buddhaghosa"

[mabw]

Also the Expositor p.37

He who prohibits (the teaching of) Abhidhamma gives a blow to the Wheel o1 the Conqueror, denies omniscience, subverts the Teacher’s knowledge full of confidence, deceives the audience, obstructs the path of the Ariyas, manifests himself as advocating one' of the eighteen causes of dissension in the Order, is capable of doing acts for which the doer is liable to be ex- communicated, or admonished,' Or scorned (by the Order), and should be dismissed after the particular act of excommuni-cation, admonition, or scorn, and reduced to living on scraps of food.

Thank you. The reason I asked is just to clarify this para. I have no position on the Abhidhamma since I have not studied it, though my working hypothesis is it is valuable to understanding Buddhist thought. I'm just thinking quoting this para won't be helping your cause. Anti-Abhidhammists will probably just point a finger at this para and declare, "Hah, see that strong language? That's evidence it is inauthentic!" It's the same stance used against Mahayana.

[robertk]

I'm just thinking quoting this para won't be helping your cause. Anti-Abhidhammists will probably just point a finger at this para and declare, "Hah, see that strong language? That's evidence it is inauthentic

It depends.
Samsara is rather long, it would be sad to miss the chance to learn more.
And for someone, probably of course not the opponents of Abhidhamma, seeing this may increase their wish to know additional details.

At the very least it is pleasant for me to reflect on that amazing teaching, when I posted it. And gratitude to the ancient Bhikkhus who preserved it so well.

[Ceisiwr]

At the very least it is pleasant for me to reflect on that amazing teaching, when I posted it. And gratitude to the ancient Bhikkhus who preserved it so well.

Indeed. We are lucky to have it.

[Spiny Norman]

I saw some debate about this on a different thread:

The orthodox Theravada position is that Abhidhamma- even the Katthavathu -is the word of the Buddha:

The atthasalini (Commentary on the Dhammasangani ,trns THe Expositor p.8) by Buddhaghosa discusses suttas that are part of the canon that are not spoken directly by the Buddha:

Bhikkhus, learned is Mahăkaccãna, profoundly wise is Mahăkaccãna. II you had asked me the same question, I would have ariswered exactly as he has done.' Thus since the time when the Teacher gave his approval, the whole Suttanta became the word o1 the Buddha. And it is the same with the Suttas expounded by Ananda and others.
'thus in teaching the seven books, when he came to the Kathãvatthu the Buddha laid down the table of contents in the way mentioned above. In doing ao he foresaw that two hundred and eighteen years after his death, Tisaa, Moggali’ø son, seated in the midst of one thousand Bhikkhus, would elaborate the Kathavathu as is stated above. And 'Tissa Mogali son, expounded the book not by his own knowledge but according to the table of contents laid down, as well as by the method given, by the 'teacher. hence the entire book became the word of the Buddha. Thus the Abhidhamma consists of seven books inclusive of the Kathavathu.

also:

The textual order of the .Abhidhamma originated with Sariputta ; the numerical series in the break Book was also determined by him. In this way the Elder, without spoiling the unique doctrine, laid down the numerical series in order
*to make it easy to learn, remember, study and teach the Law. Such being the case, was the Elder the very first to understand the Abhidhamma ? Nay, it was the Supreme Buddha who first understood the Abhidhamma. For he, seated on the throne under the Wisdom Tree, penetrated if and became the Buddha

Is orthodox Theravada the same as classical Theravada?

And would you classify those who reject the Abhidhamma as "unorthodox Theravada"? If Suttavadins were willing to accept that classification, it might save a lot of unnecessary argument and rancour.

[robertk]

is orthodox Theravada the same as classical Theravada?

And would you classify those who reject the Abhidhamma as "unorthodox Theravada"? If Suttavadins were willing to accept that classification, it might save a lot of unnecessary argument and rancour

Yes, orthodox and classical are the same by my reckoning.

I follow the details in the Commentaries - as recorded by Buddhaghosa and Dhammapala, and some of the tikas that explain more of those same Commentaries.
Sometimes the Commentaries refer to bhikkhus who hold unorthodox views as vitandavadins, but I think in this case they still accept Abhidhamma to some degree.

It seems a more extreme level to totally reject Abhidhamma: but I think those who do might not care to be identified with Theravada, which they would consider a somewhat perverted vision of the Dhamma.

[Spiny Norman]

is orthodox Theravada the same as classical Theravada?

And would you classify those who reject the Abhidhamma as "unorthodox Theravada"? If Suttavadins were willing to accept that classification, it might save a lot of unnecessary argument and rancour

Yes, orthodox and classical are the same by my reckoning.

I follow the details in the Commentaries - as recorded by Buddhaghosa and Dhammapala, and some of the tikas that explain more of those same Commentaries.
Sometimes the Commentaries refer to bhikkhus who hold unorthodox views as vitandavadins, but I think in this case they still accept Abhidhamma to some degree.

It seems a more extreme level to totally reject Abhidhamma: but I think those who do might not care to be identified with Theravada, which they would consider a somewhat perverted vision of the Dhamma.

Fair enough. Though I wonder if it's productive to be too prescriptive about the definition of "Theravada". Would it not be better to view it as a diverse collection of schools and teachers, similar to "Mahayana"?

[robertk]

is orthodox Theravada the same as classical Theravada?

And would you classify those who reject the Abhidhamma as "unorthodox Theravada"? If Suttavadins were willing to accept that classification, it might save a lot of unnecessary argument and rancour

Yes, orthodox and classical are the same by my reckoning.

I follow the details in the Commentaries - as recorded by Buddhaghosa and Dhammapala, and some of the tikas that explain more of those same Commentaries.
Sometimes the Commentaries refer to bhikkhus who hold unorthodox views as vitandavadins, but I think in this case they still accept Abhidhamma to some degree.

It seems a more extreme level to totally reject Abhidhamma: but I think those who do might not care to be identified with Theravada, which they would consider a somewhat perverted vision of the Dhamma.

Fair enough. Though I wonder if it's productive to be too prescriptive about the definition of "Theravada". Would it not be better to view it as a diverse collection of schools and teachers, similar to "Mahayana"?

Ah, well as I follow the ancient Theravada.
And according to them: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=40518&p=628773&hil ... sa#p628773

They who
had received the perfect doctrine, first (among religions),
from the first (among teachers), who were Theras and
original depositaries (of the Faith), made this first collection. Hence this whole doctrine of the Theras [Theravada] is also
called the first (or primitive) doctrine.Nobody, may a Samana come or a Brahmana of great learning, skilled in
disputation and hair-splitting, can subvert it; firm it stands like Sineru. 20. Neither a deity nor Mara nor Brahm nor any earthly beings can find in it even the smallest ill-
spoken sentence. 21. Thus the collection of the Dhamma
and of the Vinaya is complete in every part, well arranged and well protected by the omniscience of the Teacher.
22. 23. And those five hundred Theras, chief among whom
was Mahakassapa, as they knew the doubts of the people,
composed the imperishable collection of the Vinaya and of
the Dhamma, which is an incarnation of the Faith like the
highest Buddha, the collection of the Dhamma. 24. The
doctrine of the Theras, which is founded on true reasons,
which is free from heresies, full of true meaning, and
supports the true faith, will exist as long as the Faith.

25. As long as holy disciples of Buddha's faith exist, all
of them will recognize the first Council of the Dhamma.

26. The five hundred pre-eminent Theras, noble by birth
laid the first firm, original, fundamental base (of the
Faith).

Here ends the Council of Mahakassapa.

So, at least to my way of thinking, it is quite important to honor the full Tipitaka, as laid down at the first council.

[salayatananirodha]

what is in abhidhamma that is not in the suttas, and why is it not in the suttas

[Ceisiwr]

what is in abhidhamma that is not in the suttas, and why is it not in the suttas

An explanation of the neyyattha teachings. The suttas are condensed, and usually conventional.

[Gwi]

Ofc. 1.000%

Nobody cant teach Buddha's religion well
"without quoting Abhidhammå"

[DooDoot]

Ofc. 1.000%

Nobody cant teach Buddha's religion well
"without quoting Abhidhammå"

The above appears to suggest the Buddha was an imperfect teacher; that extra teachings were required to make up for the Buddha's inadequacies or failings.