Thanissaro has not read the Abhidhamma??

[tiltbillings]

I do not consider 89 mental states are as chicken droppings.
I spent lot of time pondering on these categories.
These are very important when you try to understand various mental states.

They can be if you are using that system of practice, but using the 89 mental states is not the only way of doing the practice.

[Aloka]

I do not consider 89 mental states are as chicken droppings.
I spent lot of time pondering on these categories.
These are very important when you try to understand various mental states.

However I understand that we can't spent all our life reading and analysing the text.
Practice is important.
But if there is a question and answering session like in Dhamma Wheel, we have to answer the question instead of making smart remarks.
He would have said, that investigation is not applicable for the particular Dhamma Session.

Goodness me, i find its good to lighten up and relax sometimes and not take everything too seriously!

Fivebells already knows me from the internet & I'm sure he wouldn't be offended by me quoting Ajahn Chah.

[Dhammanando]

Thanissaro says he has not read the Abhidhamma. This is very surprising to me.

I would imagine the ajahn means that he hasn't read the Abhidhamma Piṭaka, which for a Thai-trained forest monk wouldn't really be at all surprising. In Thailand even most Abhidhamma scholars haven't read all of the third Basket. For example, the most widely followed Abhidhamma syllabus in Thailand, though requiring six and a half years of study, only covers five of the seven books of the Abhidhamma Piṭaka, omitting the Puggalapaññatti and Kathāvatthu.

In the Thai forest tradition, the reading of a typical Thai monk who's been ordained for ten rains is likely to consist of the Nak Tham textbooks (compiled by a Thai prince over a century ago and imparting a rudimentary knowledge of Dhamma, Vinaya, Buddhist history, Thai Buddhist ceremonies, and essay/sermon composition), and books of Dhamma talks by forest ajahns. He is unlikely to have read a single book of the Tipiṭaka.

As for a typical western monk in this tradition, by the time he gets to ten rains he will probably have read the Vinaya Piṭaka, two or three Nikāyas from the Sutta Piṭaka, the Visuddhimagga, a couple of hundred novels, and a selection of the currently fashionable non-Theravadin spiritual books (which ones varying from one decade to the next: it used to be pop Zen and Carlos Castaneda; then it was Nisargadatta and Frithjof Schuon; the last I heard it was Dzogchen and Harry Potter).

[daverupa]

Do you mind sharing...

mike here has done a great job of summing the various issues; I'm working on how to present ideas in general, to say nothing of specific ones like this; that dough hasn't even risen, yet.

[waterchan]

As one of the three baskets of the Theravada Canon, I think it's a good idea for anyone who considers themselves Theravadin to at least have a passing familiarity with the Abhidhamma set of texts, if only to get your bearings in preparation for when it inevitably pops up in communal discussions. Regardless of whether one believes in its utility, a very significant portion of the Theravada community accept the Abhidhamma as authentic Buddhavacana.

[tiltbillings]

As one of the three baskets of the Theravada Canon, I think it's a good idea for anyone who considers themselves Theravadin to at least have a passing familiarity with the Abhidhamma set of texts, if only to get your bearings in preparation for when it inevitably pops up in communal discussions. Regardless of whether one believes in its utility, a very significant portion of the Theravada community accept the Abhidhamma as authentic Buddhavacana.

It is an interesting observation, which I think could easily be extended to the commentaries, they being an integral part of the Theravadin tradition. It would be interesting to read or hear what Vern Thanissaro has to say about the Abhdhamma, and why it seems to have no place in his teachings.

[waterchan]

It is an interesting observation, which I think could easily be extended to the commentaries, they being an integral part of the Theravadin tradition.

Yes, definitely. Though as someone who places the suttas distinctly above the Abhidhamma and the commentaries, it can be hard to find the motivation to investigate the texts that one deems to be less important. It helps to think that you're reading them out of compassion for your fellow Theravadin buddies.

[mikenz66]

Certainly the key touchstone is the suttas, but, as I said above http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 63#p340308, one really needs some sort of systematization to make sense of the suttas.

It seems that some who have apparently decided that the Abhidhamma and Commentaries are worthless, too academic, or too complex, seem to put a lot of effort into reading complicated commentaries by modern commentators and academics.

Going back to the OP, I would presume that Ven Thanissaro's remark in the talk wasn't supposed to mean that he'd never looked at the Abhidhamma, but that he hadn't studied it in detail. It's clear from his comments to his translations that he does consult the Commentaries from time to time, since he points out where he disagrees...


Mike

[SarathW]

I think this shows the professional attitude (approach) of Ven. Thannisaro.
I am sure he will say the same if someone ask him about the global warming!

When he said he has not read Abhidhamma means he is not an expert to comment on Abhidhamma.
His expertise is in Suttas.
I have no doubt he got far superior knowledge of Abhidhamma than I have.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Certainly the key touchstone is the suttas, but, as I said above http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 63#p340308, one really needs some sort of systematization to make sense of the suttas.

Is this really the case though, or is it some unquestioned assumption?

Can a sammasambuddha not explain himself coherently enough that he needs later disciples to "systematize" his unsurpassed teachings for him?

Perhaps Ven. Thanissaro has considered that question and adjudicated in favour of the Buddha's ability to teach? Texts such as his treatise on Right Mindfulness appear to show him prioritising the Buddha's teaching over later systems.

Metta,
Retro.

[SarathW]

At this stage I tend to agree with Mike.
Commentaries are very important aspect of Buddhism, even though they tend to confuse the issues (sometimes even untrue) and waste of time.
I like tabulations and charts etc. So Abhidhamma is ideal teaching and learning aide for me.

[waterchan]

Can a sammasambuddha not explain himself coherently enough that he needs later disciples to "systematize" his unsurpassed teachings for him?

I'm sure a sammasambuddha such as the Buddha was more than capable of coherently explaining himself. However, we know that the suttas were passed down in a format suitable for oral transmission, and do not represent ad verbatim the words of the Buddha. Maybe this is partly the reason why later disciples felt the need to write commentaries.

In this sense, modern Dhamma talks or Dhamma books aren't too different from the classical commentaries. In fact, whenever a bhikkhu writes about the Dhamma or gives a Dhamma talk, that is in fact the latest "commentary". I have no problem with the commentaries or the study of the commentaries, as long as they are not held in higher regard than the suttas.

[mikenz66]

Greetings,

Certainly the key touchstone is the suttas, but, as I said above http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 63#p340308, one really needs some sort of systematization to make sense of the suttas.

Is this really the case though, or is it some unquestioned assumption?

Can a sammasambuddha not explain himself coherently enough that he needs later disciples to "systematize" his unsurpassed teachings for him?

Perhaps Ven. Thanissaro has considered that question and adjudicated in favour of the Buddha's ability to teach? Texts such as his treatise on Right Mindfulness appear to show him prioritising the Buddha's teaching over later systems.

Hi Retro,

Unfortunately we don't have the benefit of being directly taught by a Buddha. We have texts/recitations that have been handed down for 2500 years. Luckily we also have the wisdom of live people who are somewhat advanced on the Path.

Perhaps some can just read the suttas and figure out how they all fit together, and forge an effective practice. Good for them, but I would personally struggle without the various lists and organisational schemes that are available, and without live examples and assistants.

Furthermore, we see here lengthy discussions in threads about the theories of modern commentators such as Ven Nanavira, Ven Nanananda, and Ven Thanissaro about how the Dhamma should be approached. And (from some) we see strong statements about how important the observations of those commentators are to understanding the Dhamma. If it were so simple then I imagine such discussions would be quite superfluous.


Mike

[Dhammanando]

Certainly the key touchstone is the suttas, but, as I said above http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 63#p340308, one really needs some sort of systematization to make sense of the suttas.

Is this really the case though, or is it some unquestioned assumption?

I would view it as an inference derived from an assumption, namely, the assumption that the Buddha was telling the truth when he said: “The Dhamma well-taught by me is free of patchwork,” (svākkhāto mayā dhammo chinnapilotiko).

Now the opposite of this would be a patchwork dhamma, meaning one whose components are ad hoc, without rhyme or reason, and which simply don’t cohere with each other. For example, the patchwork dhamma par excellence in the Buddha’s day was that of Makkhali Gosāla. In the summary of it below the part in bold is Makkhali’s essential doctrine, while the rest is just a patchwork of irrelevances:

‘Makkahali Gosāla said: “Your Majesty, there is no cause or condition for the defilement of beings, they are defiled without cause or condition. There is no cause or condition for the purification of beings, they are purified without cause or condition. There is no self-power or other-power, there is no power in humans, no strength or force, no vigour or exertion. All beings, all living things, all creatures, all that lives is without control, without power or strength, they experience the fixed course of pleasure and pain through the six kinds of rebirth. There are one million four hundred thousand principal sorts of birth, and six thousand others and again six hundred. There are five hundred kinds of kamma, or five kinds, and three kinds, and half-kamma, sixty-two paths, sixty-two intermediary aeons, six classes of humankind, eight stages of human progress, four thousand nine hundred occupations, four thousand nine hundred wanderers, four thousand nine hundred abodes of nagas, two thousand sentient existences, three thousand hells, thirty-six places of dust, seven classes of rebirth as conscious beings, seven as unconscious beings, and seven as beings ‘freed from bonds’, seven grades of devas, men, goblins, seven lakes, seven great and seven small protuberances, seven great and seven small abysses, seven great and seven small dreams, eight million four hundred thousand aeons during which fools and wise run on and circle round till they make an end of suffering.
(DN. 2. Maurice Walshe tr.)

Now if all parts of the Buddha’s teaching cohere with each other, then no parts are irrelevant and the teaching as a a whole can be presented in a systematic form.

Can a sammasambuddha not explain himself coherently enough that he needs later disciples to "systematize" his unsurpassed teachings for him?

I would prefer to say that the Buddha did, in a manner of speaking, provide his own systematization of his teaching, but that this was largely suggestive and couched in the form of statements of the Dhamma in brief (e.g. the elephant’s footprint simile) whereas the commentators’ systematization is explicit and expounded in detail.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings bhante,

Thank you for your well considered words.

“The Dhamma well-taught by me is free of patchwork,” (svākkhāto mayā dhammo chinnapilotiko).

Metta,
Retro.