The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by robertk »

mikenz66 wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 7:56 am
I'm not expert, but the Kathāvatthu seems a much later than the rest of the Abhidhamma. And I don't think that the Theravada consider it to have been taught by the Buddha, do they? From Bhikkhu Sujato's Abhidhamma introduction:
The Kathāvatthu is the only book of the Abhidhamma ascribed by the Theravāda to a specific author, Moggaliputtatissa, a senior monk at the time of King Ashoka. The core of the work probably formed then, but it grew substantially over time. One or two of the core discussions appear to share a common basis with the Vijñānakāya.
:heart:
Mike
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.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by Alex123 »

robertk wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 9:50 am 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.’
1) It deals with a specific answer to a specific question. It doesn't say that "everything that Mahakaccana will say is what Buddha approves."

2) Where in the suttas does it talk about Buddha (or anyone) teaching 6-7 books of Abhidhamma Pitaka to this or other bhikkhu?

3) What is the relationship between Ven. MahaKaccana and Ven. Moggaliputta Tissa?

Here I am not asking anything about the doctrine/content/value of Abhidhamma. Just questioning its authorship.


Thanks.
:namaste:
User avatar
Noble Sangha
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:27 pm

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by Noble Sangha »

RobertK, may you and all of us be and stay well.

Thank you for the link, I see that you and others have put in quite the effort in addressing questions and veracity on the Abhidhamma. Much merits to you and others. May the merits and your effort help you and all of us living beings to attain the supreme bliss of Nibbana.

I quickly scanned / went through most of the comments in the links you and mikenz66 provided. Thanks to the both of you for sharing. At a later time, additional evidence / findings on the authenticity of the Abhidhamma will be presented. Based on what I seen from the links that was shared, as well from my own research and the discussion that I have come across here on DW. As far as I know, what I mentioned about the additional information / findings that will be presented at a later time has not yet been mentioned / presented, except from one source.

All of the additional findings / information will only come from the materials found within the Pali Tipitaka and nothing from commentaries besides one very minor part. What will be presented is not meant to replace what others have already disseminate on the authenticity of Theravada orthodox teachings on the Abhidhamma, but rather to augment and supplement the materials that’s already been presented.

I would like to mention much merits to Lal (a forum member on here) as most of the credit belongs to him for making what will be presented at a later time possible.

I hope the information will help you and others in your endeavours and on the path.
mikenz66 wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 3:45 am
Thank you mikenz66 for the links you provided and for bringing up the questions
What is meant by "The Buddha's Teachings"? And how should they be regarded?
I thought some of the points / questions you brought up would be beneficial to be clarified / rectified, if it’s possible. I’m glad you brought them up.
is it a matter of finding them useful? Does one have to take MN123 as a literal account of the Buddha's birth for it to be a valuable sutta?
As for taking MN123 as a literal account of the Buddha’s birth for it to be a valuable sutta, I believe each sutta serves a purpose (valuable) and can be beneficial to different individuals at the appropriate time. I believe Lord Buddha would not mention / utter something that’s not valuable and that wouldn’t help us living beings to attain nibbana. As well to validate the teachings of the Buddha dhamma.

To me, it’s astonishing that you brought up MN123 out of all the sutta’s that you could’ve mentioned. It is one of the sutta’s that will be used at a later time to justify / in support for some accounts from the Theravada Abhidhamma orthodox teachings we have today.
One can ask the same question about the Heart Sutra, in which Avalokiteśvara supposedly taught Śariputra about emptiness on Vulture's Peak, which, to bring us back to topic, is arguably a polemic about taking the Abhidharma approach too literally.
Others are free to learn and believe what they like, but for me I don’t take into consideration what’s taught / disseminated from any other, in my opinion “greatly distorted” schools / lineage of Buddhism. Especially Mahayana Buddhism and any Buddhist teachings that originates from Sanskrit. Personally, I don’t have any regards for teachings from other schools of Buddhism, besides Theravada and the materials contained within the Pali Tipitaka.
it a matter of taking every word in the Canon literally?
From what I have observed from Buddhist forums, most of us here on DW cannot even agree on what’s considered to be canonical. Starting off, we’re met already met with this issue / dilemma.

So going forward, I feel it would be best that I speak on behalf of my views and perspectives. You and others are free to disagree with me. I’m not even going to put much effort in trying to persuade anyone here what is canonical or not. I have observed, it’s mostly a meaningless endeavour.

No, one should never take anything literally or in whatever one “believes” to be what’s canonical, especially Pali texts that’s been translated into different languages and what others teach / disseminate / say about the Buddha dhamma. At the beginning we could put “some faith” in the materials and teachers we’re learning from. But at the same time we should use our discernment to the best of our abilities to scrutinize for contradictions, errors and inconsistencies in the material’s and teachers that we’re learning from.
What is meant by "The Buddha's Teachings"? And how should they be regarded?
Based on my views, understanding and what I believe to be the “Buddha teachings” and how should they be regarded is:

- Any materials contained within the Pali Tipitaka. Whatever or whoever one is learning from, the dhamma teachings / doctrine / explanations are interrelated, consistent and can be verified from the Pali Tipitaka.
- Comes from a teaching of an ariya.
- Contains the four noble truths.
- Teaches Paticca samuppada, assada, adiniva, nissarana
- Helps one to Ragakkhaya, dosakkhaya, mohakkhaya and “permanently” eliminate / eradicate defilements (Kiles, akusala, anusaya, asava’s) and attain Nibbana.

To clarify what’s canonical for me is that any materials contained in the Pali Tipitaka, including the 3 original commentaries (Patisambhidamagga, Petakopadesa, and Nettippakarana) that’s found in the Pali Tipitaka. Besides those 3, any commentaries outside of the Tipitaka, I don’t consider them to be canonical and I don’t put much value or consideration in them.

I’m not saying there’s nothing to learn or useful from the commentaries outside of the Pali Tipitaka. But what I was taught and have observed for myself is that they’re often more detrimental than being of any benefit. Especially when one uses / takes into consideration what other schools of Buddhism disseminates . . .

From my understanding / experience / view, if one just learns from what’s mostly taught / contained in the Pali Tipitaka, that would solve over 50% of the problems that one has with learning Theravada Buddhism today.

[End]

I went through all the comments in this thread, some of them that mentioned reasons / grounds / basis why the Abhidhamma is not buddhavacara. I’ll quickly address some of them and additional / added supporting evidence will be provided at a later time. Including whether the Abhidhamma was recited at the 1st Buddhist council or not.
I would generally aruge that "originally there were no Pitakas", because it appears that the term Pitaka may have been a slightly later usage.
Actually the term “Pitaka” was mentioned at the first Buddhist council, but it’s easy to miss and was not translated surprisingly.
Oh, by the way, do you know that Abhidhamma is never mentioned in theravadin canonical texts about 1st Council and even 2nd one, which happened roughly 100 years after Buddha's demise? The answer is simple and obvious: nothing is said about it in there because there was no such thing as Abhidhamma. Not even a tiny hint about so called "3rd pitaka". And this very word "ti-pitaka" appeard only after 3rd council.
Actually the word “ti-pitaka” was mentioned at the 1st council. Once again, it was not translated and easy to miss.
Also, just because some Vinaya mention the recitation of the sutta [pitaka] in the First Council, best not to assume that this includes the KN (and then try to argue that the Abhidhamma was part of KN, therefore recited at the first council). This is because a comparison amongst schools quickly shows that the KN is really just a Theravada thing, and not shared by other schools.
Umm, why should Theravada teaching materials need to be validated by other schools and vice versa? . . . Obviously there’s going to be differences between different schools teaching materials . . .

And the KN was mentioned in the vinaya . . .
The Abhidhamma, could not have been recited by Ananda at the first council, it did not exist! There were originally only two baskets of teachings, the Vinaya & Suttas. The fairy tale that was introduced to give authenticity to the Abhidhamma, would make Hans christien Anderson blush
Venerable Ananda Thero main task was to recite the sutta’s.

When the fairy tale is going to be proven true or the Abhidhamma was recited at the first Buddhist council. That’s going to make the one’s basing from a “scholarly and historically” position that discredits the Abhidhamma was not recited at the first council blush. :embarassed:
“The Abhidhamma was not recited at the First Buddhist council.”

At least from the Canonical account (Tipitaka), there appears to be no indication that the Abhidhamma was recited at the First Council.
The question and debate remains open, however, as to whether it was recited or compiled before the Third Council.

The massive inclusion of Abhidhamma books into Buddhist Canons was so bold move, that even whole protesting school appeared - Sautrāntika. These monks just plainly denied Abhidhamma - not because they didn't understand it or didn't like it - but because this was not said by the Buddha. There were no schools which denied Suttanta, no schools which denied Vinaya. But yes, there were ancient monks who denied Abhidhamma, and this is understandable.
Overall, it seems like the major consensus and main argument / rationale / justification that the abhidhamma is not the Buddha’s teachings or Buddhavacana is due to not being recited at the first Buddhist council.
But according to virtually every account, the Parivara, is the latest, most recent addition to the Tipitaka, dating around or even after the Fourth Council, which would make it even later than the Abhidhamma.

The question and debate remains open, however, as to whether it was recited or compiled before the Third Council.”
This is a question to anyone that would like to answer. If it can be proven that the abhidhamma was recited at the first Buddhist council even before the Parivara was introduced and all the things that I have mentioned in this post about the Abhidhamma. Would that be sufficient to prove that the abhidhamma is the / belongs to the Buddha’s teachings and is Buddhavacara from a “scholarly and historical position”?
I am a Buddhist that doesn't practice Buddhism. What I practice is nekkhamma, abyāpāda, avihiṁsā, viraga, nirodha or the Noble Eight Fold Path. The elimination / eradication / extermination of defilements, kilesa's, raga, dosa, moha and asava's.

Lineage: Buddha > Sthaviravada > Vibhajjavada > Theravada > Striving for Nibbana.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Noble Sangha,
Noble Sangha wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 7:59 pm
is it a matter of finding them useful? Does one have to take MN123 as a literal account of the Buddha's birth for it to be a valuable sutta?
As for taking MN123 as a literal account of the Buddha’s birth for it to be a valuable sutta, I believe each sutta serves a purpose (valuable) and can be beneficial to different individuals at the appropriate time. I believe Lord Buddha would not mention / utter something that’s not valuable and that wouldn’t help us living beings to attain nibbana. As well to validate the teachings of the Buddha dhamma.

To me, it’s astonishing that you brought up MN123 out of all the sutta’s that you could’ve mentioned. It is one of the sutta’s that will be used at a later time to justify / in support for some accounts from the Theravada Abhidhamma orthodox teachings we have today.
I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to, it was just an example of a sutta with a lot of statements that some find hard to fathom. Perhaps my questions are taking this thread off topic, and I should ask these questions in a dfferent thread.

It just strikes me that there is a lot of literalism on both sides of these arguments about authenticity. To be overly simplistic, on one side some Secular Buddhists look at statements like:
I have learned this in the presence of the Buddha:
‘When the being intent on awakening emerges from his mother’s womb, before he reaches the ground, four deities receive him and place him before his mother, saying: “Rejoice, O Queen! An illustrious son is born to you.”’
They respond by rejecting it. On the other side some Traditional Buddhists say that it's important to take such passages completely literally. However, it could be argued that both sides are actually arguing from what I understand is a rather modern idea: that only things that can be taken literally are worthwhile. For more on this issue see, for example, Rita Gross' articles and talks:
https://www.buddhistinquiry.org/article ... ghtenment/
https://tricycle.org/magazine/truth-about-truth/
or Bhikkhu Sujato's writings and talk on the value of mythology (not mythology in the sense of "not true").

:heart:
Mike
Post Reply