Thanissaro has not read the Abhidhamma??

[mikenz66]

Hi Bhante,

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 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.

That's an excellent point. If the teachings were a patchwork then the Abhidhamma/Commentary exercise would, indeed be futile, as there would be contradictions.

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.

And, of course, there are different levels of this systematisation. I personally found the framework sketched by Bhikkhu Bodhi in "In the Buddha's Words" very helpful in sorting the suttas into some sort of approachable framework. And, of course, there are other systematisations, such as Thanissaro's Wings to Awakening, which tackles meditative aspects in great detail.

Even providing a basic reading list is a major systematisation. Imagine simply being presented with the Nikayas, with no footnotes and no guidance of where to start. I guess you could start at DN1 and just keep going till you dropped...


Mike

[daverupa]

Imagine simply being presented with the Nikayas, with no footnotes and no guidance of where to start. I guess you could start at DN1 and just keep going till you dropped...

Footnotes were essential, but that was basically my approach (though: MN, DN, SN, AN). Then Vinaya to a certain extent, then Abhidhamma to a certain extent. Interspersed were many book-sized 'footnotes' by many authors - a modern Commentary, as it were.

[tiltbillings]

Systematization is what we human seem to do as we see in this link and this link found in the previous link. What is interesting is that, depending upon the emphasis, these graphed presentation of the systems found in the suttas could be considerably different with different emphasis.

Ven Thanissaro has variously presented his systematizations in his various writing where he gathers together various suttas, or quotes from suttas to support his understandings on various subjects. At best there is one singular system structure, the Four Noble Truths, but how that is fleshed out can vary significantly. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing at all. It points to a richness and depth found in the suttas. I simply do not think, as we approach the corpus of the Tipitaka that we are going to get absolute certainty or absolute agreement.

[SarathW]

I would say Sutta also another form of systemisation like Abhidhamma.

[tiltbillings]

I would say Sutta also another form of systemisation like Abhidhamma.

Fortunately, I have the emoticon thingies turned off, but I do get the code for them, and I am seeing the end of your statement is

Code: Select all

:shrug:

, which seems appropriate.

The Abhidhamma, in terms of systematization, is on very different level of what would find in the suttas.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Moving beyond post-Buddha systems for a moment, what is really required in the Dhamma is the individual attainment of Right View.

These external systems, by way of what they teach and the degree of conformity in their words to the Dhamma, may or may not be an externalised embodiment of Right View. The best way to judge that is, in my opinion, by using safeguards implemented by the Buddha, like the Four Great References of the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, the Simsapa Sutta, Ani Sutta, Kalama Sutta etc. to compare and contrast their content with the suttas, and ensuring they are not a "patchwork".

If, fingers crossed, they are in alignment with the Dhamma, there is a potential for internalization of the Dhamma to come as a result from adhering to those systems. If they are not, there is not. Yet, no matter whether one goes direct to the suttas, or via some intermediary shaping/re-modelling of them, the key element is internalization - i.e. Right View, a knowing of how things are in the Dhamma - that which leads to the opening of the Dhamma-eye.

What doesn't work for anybody, is if no teachings are internalized. There is a big risk of never attaining Right View, if there is no attempt to actually internalize the teachings. We need to make it real for us, and understanding the Dhamma is not achieved by circumambulating revered teachings and revered teachers and putting them on a pedestal beyond reach, imagining that they must be far too profound for us to ever master. To think their words must be swallowed whole, unchallenged, undigested, is to miss the opportunity to investigate, to consider, to dwell, to compare and to see whether the teachings meet the criteria for Right View.

I think Nanavira Thera summed this imperative up well in one of his letters...

You may have felt that I have stated the facts in a callous way, that I do not take the matter seriously enough, that I am indifferent to other people's feelings, and that perhaps even some of my remarks are almost offensive. Let me assure you that I have not the slightest desire to offend you or anyone else, and if I have seemed offensive that I am sorry for it. But also let me say that my style is deliberate and is not unconnected with the foregoing remarks about the present total divorce of the Dhamma from reality. The point is this: for me the Dhamma is real, and it is the only thing that I take seriously: if I cannot practise the Dhamma as I wish, I have no further desire to live. Though I say it myself, it seems to me that this attitude is a necessary corrective to the prevalent blindly complacent view of the Dhamma as something to be taken for granted—that is to say, as a dead letter—; and I regard it almost as a duty to reflect this attitude in my writing, even at the risk of giving offence. (For most Buddhists in Ceylon—I will not say for you—there are many things that they take far more seriously than the Dhamma, and when I show too plainly that I regard these as worthless trifles, offence is easily taken.)

I do not know how you will receive this letter. It is easy to make mistakes and to miscalculate the effect of what one says. In any case, please accept my assurances that it is written with the best of intentions and with the desire to communicate to you something that I regard as being of paramount importance.

I suspect Thanissaro Bhikkhu's courage at going against the stream and offering correctives to what he sees as being disconnected to the Dhamma (which may or may not include Abhidhamma - one would have to ask him personally on this), would best be viewed in this light.

Metta,
Retro.

[alan]

Yes!

[LXNDR]

i'm guessing the Lord Buddha didn't read it either

[SarathW]

i'm guessing the Lord Buddha didn't read it either

Lord Buddha and Ven Thanissaro is not the same.

[LXNDR]

i'm guessing the Lord Buddha didn't read it either

Lord Buddha and Ven Thanissaro is not the same.

the question is whether he absolutely needs it for progress on the Path or just for being considered a scholar or a learned monk, that is for status and credibility

[SarathW]

i'm guessing the Lord Buddha didn't read it either

Lord Buddha and Ven Thanissaro is not the same.

the question is whether he absolutely needs it for progress on the Path or just for being considered a scholar or a learned monk, that is for status and credibility

The way I understand Suttas and Abhidhamma are two different ways of systemisation of Buddha's teaching.
My personal opinion is Sutta is a great way to understand Buddha's original teaching.
Abhidhamma is like a detailed road map. (find a way out if you get lost)
Hence they both complement each other for the practice as well as teaching.

[chownah]

My understanding is that the abhidhama is something that some people made up long after the buddha was dead.
chownah

[SarathW]

My understanding is that the abhidhama is something that some people made up long after the buddha was dead.
chownah

You find almost every thing in Sutta also in Abhidhamma one form or another.
So it is not made up.

[chownah]

My understanding is that the abhidhama is something that some people made up long after the buddha was dead.
chownah

You find almost every thing in Sutta also in Abhidhamma one form or another.
So it is not made up.

Alot of things in the abhiddhama are not in the suttas....so it is probably made up by people who lived long after the buddha had died.
chownah

[mikenz66]

My understanding is that the abhidhama is something that some people made up long after the buddha was dead.
chownah

You find almost every thing in Sutta also in Abhidhamma one form or another.
So it is not made up.

Alot of things in the abhiddhama are not in the suttas....so it is probably made up by people who lived long after the buddha had died.
chownah

Do you mean the Canonical Abhidhamma, or the later commentaries? Mind moments, etc are not Abhidhamma, for instance. The Abhidhamma itself tends to put me to sleep, but it seems to be mostly a detailed exposition of the conditionality, etc, of the suttas.


Mike