Is Abhidhamma the Buddha's teaching?

[starter]

I do not consider Abhidhamma as the real Buddha's teaching, because the author does not seem to have sufficient respect for the Buddha and often deviates from the suttas.

For example, the Buddha defined the fourth aggregate as "volition", but in Abhidhamma various "formations" are included in it, which are not supported by the suttas.

Another example, Abhidhamma misses the contemplation of the five aggregates, includes only the contemplation of nama-rupa; but viññāṇa is not included in nama-rupa. Without a full understanding of viññāṇa one cannot become a stream enterer.

As Ven. Analayo pointed out:

"In the context of dependent arising an understanding of name as including consciousness, such as found in later tradition, would not work. On such a reading, the reciprocal conditional relationship between consciousness and name-and-form would result in presenting consciousness as Self-conditioning."

Also nama-rupa contemplation in Abhidhamma is not done according to the suttas.

One who doesn't have sufficient respect for the Buddha and who doesn't comprehend the five aggregates as the Buddha taught can not be a stream enterer, or a noble disciple. I do not think the Buddha's disciples should rely on Abhidhamma to guide their practice.

[Ceisiwr]

Wrong subsection.

[DNS]

Moved to Early Buddhism. See also this existing topic:
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=2169

[Coëmgenu]

I'm pretty sure this is going to get moved eventually to "General" or "Hot Topics" or something else, so I'll respond here with that assumption in mind (EDIT: as I composed this, it was moved). I don't know if comparing different Abhidharma traditions is outside the scope of the Abhidhamma subforum, but it is certainly not its intended use according to the forum guidelines.

Another example, Abhidhamma misses the contemplation of the five aggregates, includes only the contemplation of nama-rupa; but viññāṇa is not included in nama-rupa. Without a full understanding of viññāṇa one cannot become a stream enterer.

I don't know much at all about Pali Abhidhamma. In Abhidharmakośakārikā, a non-Theravadin Abhidharma treatise, it quote the Mahāvibhāṣa:

Nāman are the skandhas that are not rūpa.

(T1545.73a18)

The treatise comments:

The four nonmaterial skandhas, — sensation, ideas, saṃskāras, and consciousness, are called nāman, for nāman signifies "that which bends," (namatīti nāma). The nonmaterial skandhas bend, [that is, "are active," pravartante, "arise," utpadyante], towards the object (artha) by reason of name (nāman), the organs, and the object. In this phrase, "by reason of name," one takes the word "name" in its popular sense, (saṃjñākaraṇa [...]), as a "designation," which designates and causes to be understood either a collection, "cattle," "horses," etc., or a single thing, "rūpa" "taste," etc.

Why is saṃjñākaraṇa termed "name?" Because the saṃjñākaraṇa causes the nonmaterial skandhas to bend (namatīti nāma) towards their object.

According to another explanation, the nonmaterial skandhas are termed nāman, because, when the body dissolves, these skandhas bend, that is, go towards another existence.

(Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam vol. II p. 422-3 Leo Pruden)

Venerable Buddhaghosa inherits a similar narrative about nāma being so-called because it "bends," but I don't have time to find it right now.

[Coëmgenu]

Reading the Abhidharma definition very strictly, we have "the bend and the form" for "nāmarūpa." Were that the case, we would expect nāmana to be in a compound with rūpa instead of just nāma. I take this as making it likely that "it bends" (namatīti) and "bend" (nāmana) are exegetical rather than etymological in intention.

So, in relation to the OP, if the Pali tradition is anything like the continental Sarvāstivādins, they included consciousness in their contemplation of the aggregates via contemplating nāman.

[SarathW]

I do not consider Abhidhamma as the real Buddha's teaching, because the author does not seem to have sufficient respect for the Buddha and often deviates from the suttas.

For example, the Buddha defined the fourth aggregate as "volition", but in Abhidhamma various "formations" are included in it, which are not supported by the suttas.

Another example, Abhidhamma misses the contemplation of the five aggregates, includes only the contemplation of nama-rupa; but viññāṇa is not included in nama-rupa. Without a full understanding of viññāṇa one cannot become a stream enterer.

As Ven. Analayo pointed out:

"In the context of dependent arising an understanding of name as including consciousness, such as found in later tradition, would not work. On such a reading, the reciprocal conditional relationship between consciousness and name-and-form would result in presenting consciousness as Self-conditioning."

Also nama-rupa contemplation in Abhidhamma is not done according to the suttas.

One who doesn't have sufficient respect for the Buddha and who doesn't comprehend the five aggregates as the Buddha taught can not be a stream enterer, or a noble disciple. I do not think the Buddha's disciples should rely on Abhidhamma to guide their practice.

- Even Sutta is not Buddha's teaching word to word. It is a latter compilation to facilitate memorisation. Abhidhamma is a tabulation of Sutta content in a different way. In my opinion you find most of Sutta teaching is in Abhidhamma too. If you are a Dhamma teacher you need to have some understanding of Abhidhamma.
- Abhidhamma explain five aggregate as Rupa ,Citta,Cetasika. Additionally it deals with Nibbana

-

[DooDoot]

For example, the Buddha defined the fourth aggregate as "volition"...

I am only aware of one sutta (SN 22.56) where the fourth aggregate is defined as "volition". For example, the below does not appear to be about volition:

And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.' What do they fabricate as a fabricated thing? For the sake of form-ness, they fabricate form as a fabricated thing. For the sake of feeling-ness, they fabricate feeling as a fabricated thing. For the sake of perception-hood... For the sake of fabrication-hood... For the sake of consciousness-hood, they fabricate consciousness as a fabricated thing. Because they fabricate fabricated things, they are called fabrications.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[Pulsar]

Dear Starter: You make a lot of sense to me.. your post ending with ..

I do not think the Buddha's disciples should rely on Abhidhamma to guide their practice.

The following is quite interesting.

As Ven. Analayo pointed out:
"In the context of dependent arising an understanding of name as including consciousness, such as found in later tradition, would not work. On such a reading, the reciprocal conditional relationship between consciousness and name-and-form would result in presenting consciousness as Self-conditioning."

Can you give me a link to that?
Regards
PS Ven Sujatho wrote on Sutta central once, he had to unlearn all the abhidhamma he had learnt, I guess he meant in order to understand the Buddha of the suttas.

[Ceisiwr]

PS Ven Sujatho wrote on Sutta central once, he had to unlearn all the abhidhamma he had learnt, I guess he meant in order to understand the Buddha of the suttas.

Defining namarupa as “mind and matter” or “mind and body” is very much an Abhidhamma position.

[DooDoot]

[Defining namarupa as “mind and matter” or “mind and body” is very much an Abhidhamma position.

The above is obviously wrong. How many times must we go thru the above Western Brahmanistic heresy?

And what is mentality-materiality, what is the origin of mentality-materiality, what is the cessation of mentality-materiality, what is the way leading to the cessation of mentality-materiality? Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention — these are called mentality. The four great elements and the material form derived from the four great elements — these are called rupa.

MN 9

Rāhula, the interior earth element is said to be anything hard, solid, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This includes: head hair, body hair, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, undigested food, feces, or anything else hard, solid, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This is called the interior earth element. The interior earth element and the exterior earth element are just the earth element. This should be truly seen with right understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’ When you truly see with right understanding, you reject the earth element, detaching the mind from the earth element.

And what is the water element? The water element may be interior or exterior. And what is the interior water element? Anything that’s water, watery, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This includes: bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, grease, saliva, snot, synovial fluid, urine, or anything else that’s water, watery, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This is called the interior water element. The interior water element and the exterior water element are just the water element. This should be truly seen with right understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’ When you truly see with right understanding, you reject the water element, detaching the mind from the water element.

And what is the fire element? The fire element may be interior or exterior. And what is the interior fire element? Anything that’s fire, fiery, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This includes: that which warms, that which ages, that which heats you up when feverish, that which properly digests food and drink, or anything else that’s fire, fiery, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This is called the interior fire element. The interior fire element and the exterior fire element are just the fire element. This should be truly seen with right understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’ When you truly see with right understanding, you reject the fire element, detaching the mind from the fire element.

And what is the air element? The air element may be interior or exterior. And what is the interior air element? Anything that’s wind, windy, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This includes: winds that go up or down, winds in the belly or the bowels, winds that flow through the limbs, in-breaths and out-breaths, or anything else that’s air, airy, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This is called the interior air element. The interior air element and the exterior air element are just the air element. This should be truly seen with right understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’ When you truly see with right understanding, you reject the air element, detaching the mind from the air element.

MN 62

[mikenz66]

Hi Starter,

For example, the Buddha defined the fourth aggregate as "volition", but in Abhidhamma various "formations" are included in it, which are not supported by the suttas.

By "Abhidhamma" do you mean the Abhidhamma basket of the Tipitika, https://suttacentral.net/pitaka/abhidhamma/pli-tv-ab or the later commentaries suich as the Visuddhimagga and the Abhidhammattha Sangaha (Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma)?

Here is the Khandhavibhaṅga:
The Book of Analysis 1. Analysis of the Aggregates
https://suttacentral.net/vb1/en/thittila


Mike

[Eko Care]

Another example, Abhidhamma misses the contemplation of the five aggregates, includes only the contemplation of nama-rupa; but viññāṇa is not included in nama-rupa. Without a full understanding of viññāṇa one cannot become a stream enterer.

A reader have to think twice before judging such things.
Clue: I got to know that most of the above view holders(teachers), are identified with Puggalavada kind of views.
For example: believing intermediate-life, rejecting momentary change, atta ...etc.

As Ven. Analayo pointed out:
"In the context of dependent arising an understanding of name as including consciousness, such as found in later tradition, would not work. On such a reading, the reciprocal conditional relationship between consciousness and name-and-form would result in presenting consciousness as Self-conditioning."

It depends on whom you give priority, when it comes to Buddhism?
Third council or Analayo or Own-reasoning ???

Also nama-rupa contemplation in Abhidhamma is not done according to the suttas.
I have read nama-rupa of paticcasamuppada in Abhidhamma/commentary is same as above and doesn't include vinnana.
But in other contexts, Abhidhamma/commentaries define it as 4 khandas excluding rupa.

[plabit]

I do not consider Abhidhamma as the real Buddha's teaching, because the author does not seem to have sufficient respect for the Buddha and often deviates from the suttas.

For example, the Buddha defined the fourth aggregate as "volition", but in Abhidhamma various "formations" are included in it, which are not supported by the suttas.

This is false. The word is sankhara, formations. Translators understand that in the closing 4 aggregates all of them are mental so rather than translating it "formations" they add words like "mental" as in "mental formations." But some impose their interpretation of what "mental formations" are by saying "volitional formations." Some then simplify by dropping the word "formations" and just say "volition." But in doing so they dropped the word that was actually a translation of sankhara and only kept their addition! So in other words, the problem is you've been reading the suttas in one translation only and need to get familiar with how different translations translate these technical terms.

[Dhammanando]

But some impose their interpretation of what "mental formations" are by saying "volitional formations."

The translators who translate sankhārakkhandha as "aggregate of volitional formations" do so because, (1) the suttas define this aggregate as cha cetanakāyā, "the six classes of volition" (i.e., the volitions that arise in connection with visible forms, sounds, odours, etc.) and never define it in any other way, and (2) because they dissent from the Abhidhamma's expansion of just cetanā to the fifty cetasikas.

[DooDoot]

(1) the suttas define this aggregate as cha cetanakāyā, "the six classes of volition" (i.e., the volitions that arise in connection with visible forms, sounds, odours, etc.) and never define it in any other way,

Venerable Dhammanando. Are you certain about the above? I previously mentioned SN 22.56 as the specific example of the above. However, such a specific definition appears not evident in SN 22.79; where my impression is sankhara might be about imputing 'self' or other wrong views upon the five aggregates. How would you personally translate & interpret the definition of sankhara in SN 22.79? Thank you