waryoffolly wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 2:57 pm It would be good for people arguing against the commentaries to take a look at an example of the atthakatha. To me they seem much closer to the suttas than many modern commentarial works (ie modern books on Buddhism!).
Is this really so anti-dhamma?
https://www.bps.lk/olib/bp/bp212s_Bodhi ... seship.pdf
Also see here for other free commentary translations (you have to google the titles).
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/pl ... ions/16882
Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
Re: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
-
- Posts: 232
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2021 3:57 pm
Re: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
Thanks for the suggestion. Will search for those books.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 2:51 pmI would actually start with “The Theravada Abhidhamma: Inquiry Into the Nature of Conditioned Reality” and “The Buddhist Analysis of Matter” both by Y. Karunadasa. They are very good introductions. Regarding the texts themselves I would say start with the Vibangha, then the Dhammasangini then the Patthana, which can be a difficult read (this is where Karunadasa comes in handy) . The Yamaka is more of a question and answers book for students. It and the dhātukathā can be hard to read at times. The Kathāvatthu is simple enough and can be read at any time. The same for the Puggalapaññatti.Dhammavamsa wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 2:13 pm For one to begin studying Abhidhamma, which book should be read first?
Currently I have gone through Majjhima Nikaya, partial Anguttara Nikaya, and now Samyutta Nikaya just arrived my home today.
But I really interested to know more Abhidhamma Pitaka. Is Ven. Narada Thero's Abhidhammattha Sangaha book a good start?
I got Patisambhidamagga, Dhammasangani, Atthasalini, and Kathavathu soft copies. Any suggestion for reading sequence?
Deleted
Re: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
You can get the first book for free here: https://www.bps.lk/olib/bp/bp439s_Karun ... dharma.pdfDhammavamsa wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:01 pmThanks for the suggestion. Will search for those books.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 2:51 pmI would actually start with “The Theravada Abhidhamma: Inquiry Into the Nature of Conditioned Reality” and “The Buddhist Analysis of Matter” both by Y. Karunadasa. They are very good introductions. Regarding the texts themselves I would say start with the Vibangha, then the Dhammasangini then the Patthana, which can be a difficult read (this is where Karunadasa comes in handy) . The Yamaka is more of a question and answers book for students. It and the dhātukathā can be hard to read at times. The Kathāvatthu is simple enough and can be read at any time. The same for the Puggalapaññatti.Dhammavamsa wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 2:13 pm For one to begin studying Abhidhamma, which book should be read first?
Currently I have gone through Majjhima Nikaya, partial Anguttara Nikaya, and now Samyutta Nikaya just arrived my home today.
But I really interested to know more Abhidhamma Pitaka. Is Ven. Narada Thero's Abhidhammattha Sangaha book a good start?
I got Patisambhidamagga, Dhammasangani, Atthasalini, and Kathavathu soft copies. Any suggestion for reading sequence?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
-
- Posts: 232
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2021 3:57 pm
Re: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
Gee. Thank you.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:09 pmYou can get the first book for free here: https://www.bps.lk/olib/bp/bp439s_Karun ... dharma.pdfDhammavamsa wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:01 pmThanks for the suggestion. Will search for those books.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 2:51 pm
I would actually start with “The Theravada Abhidhamma: Inquiry Into the Nature of Conditioned Reality” and “The Buddhist Analysis of Matter” both by Y. Karunadasa. They are very good introductions. Regarding the texts themselves I would say start with the Vibangha, then the Dhammasangini then the Patthana, which can be a difficult read (this is where Karunadasa comes in handy) . The Yamaka is more of a question and answers book for students. It and the dhātukathā can be hard to read at times. The Kathāvatthu is simple enough and can be read at any time. The same for the Puggalapaññatti.
Deleted
- Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
- Posts: 2179
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm
Re: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
Great topic. I learnt a lot from this thread, esp Craig.
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
V. Nanananda
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
V. Buddhādasa
- Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
- Posts: 2179
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm
Re: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
I don't think so, regarding the word accept. It depends on one's ability.
However, if the question is:
- Is it un-Theravadin to reject Abhidhamma a part of the doctrine?
...
Yes ... would be my answer. Historical documentations would agree to that.
ps: I have been wondering why people are attracted to and craved to be identified with the word Theravada despite a core doctrine itself being anathema to them. They should adopt whatever other label they fancy. And, they should just spare Theravada from their projections & distorted identifications. Please leave Theravada alone. Thanks
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
V. Nanananda
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
V. Buddhādasa
Re: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
I was wondering the same thing. Why would it be important to be designated as Theravadin?Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:42 pm ps: I have been wondering why people are attracted to and craved to be identified with the word Theravada despite a core doctrine itself being anathema to them. They should adopt whatever other label they fancy. And, they should just spare Theravada from their projections & distorted identifications. Please leave Theravada alone. Thanks
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"
This was the last word of the Tathagata.
This was the last word of the Tathagata.
Re: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
Possibly identity politics. Possibly they want to trace themselves back to the Sthaviravādins during the first schism. Possibly it's just a way to signal "non-Mahāyāna." There are more possibilities too.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Re: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
I'm not sure it's accurate to say that people such as Ven Sujato, Ven Analayo, etc "reject <stuff> in toto". Bhikkhu Analayo often talks about how he's not necessarily saying that "later is wrong". For example here:
And Bhikkhu Sujato has a nice series of talks on the Visuddhimagga:
[And, of course, it's essential to distinguish the Canonical Abhidhamma from the Commentaries. Many ideas that are labelled "Abhidhamma" are not actually in the Canonical texts.]
See also: Abhidhamma: a systematic analysis of the doctrine
The attitude of Vens Sujato, Analayo, and various others seems quite different to the hostile attitude to such works that we sometimes see here, or in works by other teachers....
Unlike the Suttas and Vinaya, the Abhidhamma texts of the different schools are not closely related. It seems likely, in fact, that these were some of the formative texts in establishing the different schools. Nevertheless, Erich Frauwallner in his Studies in Abhidharma Literature and the Origins of Buddhist Philosophical Systems (1996) has identified certain core features of Abhidhamma that are common between the traditions. This notably includes the Pali Vibhaṅga, the Sarvāstivāda Dharmaskandha, and the Dharmaguptaka Śāripūtrābhidharmaśastra. These texts all include a common core, which is ultimately derived from the Saṁyutta Nikāya.
Despite their differences, however, it would be a mistake to see the canonical Abhidhamma texts as presenting strongly sectarian positions. Apart from the polemical works such as the Kathāvatthu, for the most part they focus on presenting the central ideas of the Dhamma in different ways.
...
As has been pointed out several times, any attempt at making sense of the suttas is "abhidhamma" in the sense of discussion about Dhamma. It makes sense to consider carefully any such abhidhamma, whether it comes from modern or ancient teachers or practitioners.
Mike
Re: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
The term "dukkhasamudaya" is not related to any notion of "classed" under suffering. The word "samudaya" means "arising" or "origination". The Suttas define "dukkhasamudaya" as:Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 12:27 pmThose dhammas are all classed under suffering, as per the 3 different types of dukkha.DooDoot wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 12:03 pm Abhdidhamma says:
Therein what is the cause of suffering (dukkhasamudayo)? Craving. This is called the cause of suffering.
Therein what is suffering? The remaining corruptions, the remaining unskilful dhammas, the three skilful roots that are objects of the defilements, the remaining skilful dhammas that are objects of the defilements, the resultants of skilful and unskilful dhammas that are objects of the defilements, whatever inoperative dhammas there are neither skilful nor unskilful nor the resultants of action, and all material qualities. This is called suffering.
https://suttacentral.net/vb4/en/thittila#pts-cs206
And what is the noble truth of the origination of stress?
"From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then old age & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.
"This is called the noble truth of the origination of stress.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Re: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
Sujato is quite clear that he is fundamentally opposed to the Theravada Abhidhamma.
http://kusala.online-dhamma.net/文字資料/南傳 ... dhamma.pdfBut the Dhammasangini asks ‘What is the aggregate of cognition on that occasion?’ This is as nonsensical as asking ‘Which dog is the canine species?’ The Dhammasangini is so crude
a semantic steamroller that it is unable to distinguish between a class and a member of the class. A class is too obviously a concept, and it just wouldn’t do to soil the abhidhamma with mere concepts.
In the later abhidhamma, the treatment of time is dominated by a radical new theory, totally unlike anything in the suttas or even the canonical abhidhamma, the theory of moments (khanavada). [..] Now it is quite possible to take this theory, compare it with the suttas, and refute it point by point. But here I would simply like to point out what an implausible and useless idea it is.
[..]
So too the self (atta) is just a big pile of ‘self-existents’ (sabhava). This kind of analysis is reminiscent of Jain animism, which sees all existence as composed of atoms (paramanu), which they call ‘persons’ (pudgala). These are elemental souls (jiva, lives), possessed of color, odor, and taste. The souls of earth, etc., are tiny, undeveloped, and can only be perceived when vast amounts of them accumulate in one place. The souls of humans are merely an advanced version. The simple animistic theories of the early Jaina Sutras, whose concepts probably pre-date the Buddha, became developed by their commentaries in abstruse and baffling detail.
The reifying tendency takes full flight in later abhidhamma literature. This task is the burden of the Patthana, a book whose labyrinthine mazes are ideally suited to masking the fact that it is a spurious solution to a pseudo-problem. The Patthana, the most revered – and therefore least read – of all abhidhamma books, is said to present 24 modes of conditional relationships. It
does nothing of the sort. Most of the much-vaunted ‘modes of conditional relations’ are merely lists of dhammas that act as condition for other dhammas. The text says little about causality as such; in fact this work excels all other products of the human mind in its combination of verbosity of form with vacuity of content. Remarkably, it is less intellectually stimulating and less readable than a telephone book. The Patthana attempts
to glue the mind and the body back together again with its ‘dissociation condition’, a term which perfectly encapsulates the strange world of mind-body dualism: things are connected by being disconnected. I can certainly confirm that if I think about this stuff too much, I end up in a very dissociated condition!
....
I suggest that the abhidhamma is most profitably considered, not as a psychology or as a philosophy, but as a mystical cult.
Although there are some kind words, on the whole Sujato is completely opposed to the Theravada Abhidhamma and Theravada in general given how many times he criticises it and us. I suspect part of this is orthodox Theravadin’s continued opposition to the ordination of nuns. Can’t let things get in the way of progressive politics I guess.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
Could you provide a quotation for this idea? I don't think it's at all controversial that the Buddha taught differently to people with different inclinations, and at different levels, so some effort is required to work out how the teachings in various suttas fit together (which is what the various strata of Commentary do), but you seem to be suggesting something other than that.
Mike
Re: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
That Sujato thinks there is no underlying structure? Sure. I’ll try and dig it out. It’s part of his criticism of the Abhidhamma’s attempts to systemise the teachings.mikenz66 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:06 pmCould you provide a quotation for this idea? I don't think it's at all controversial that the Buddha taught differently to people with different inclinations, and at different levels, so some effort is required to work out how the teachings in various suttas fit together (which is what the various strata of Commentary do), but you seem to be suggesting something other than that.
Mike
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
Whilst looking this came up. Another one for the books from
Sujato:
Sujato:
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/wh ... upa/4600/8Warning: using the Abhidhamma to understand the suttas will only lead to weariness and vexation! You will have to learn a bunch of complicated stuff, and then spend years unlearning it! Like I did!
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Is it compulsory to accept Abhidhamma as a part of doctrine to be considered as Theravada?
And some more where he actually agrees with what I was saying earlier, that even he can’t escape “doing Abhidhamma”:
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/wh ... pa/4600/23Who said I was opposed to abhidhamma? “Abhidhamma” just means “about the dhamma”, and it is what we do here, have discussions “about the dhamma”. But in modern Theravada, abhidhamma is used in a much more pregnant sense. It has come to mean a specific body of teachings, primarily those found in the Abhidhammatthasangaha, which constitute the “Higher Teachings”.
So what I’m opposed to is misusing the abhidhamma by using it as a lens through which the suttas are seen. That’s not what it was meant for: it was meant as an advanced study for those who have already mastered the suttas and want to put their study on a more systematic basis.
The problem is that, as used in modern Theravada, the abhidhamma has come to be seen as authoritative, and rather than explaining the suttas, it explains them away. For practical purposes, in modern Theravada, when the abhidhamma (i.e the Abhidhammatthasangaha and its commentaries) and the suttas disagree, the suttas are interpreted so as to agree with the abhidhamma.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”