Abhidhamma is not a Complicated Entanglement

Discussion of Abhidhamma and related Commentaries
User avatar
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Abhidhamma is not a Complicated Entanglement

Post by Eko Care »

This is a reply for some opinions held by another user about Abhidhamma.
Pulsar wrote: a man clothed in bark, Bahia,.....
Where is the abhidhamma in that statement? Did that stop Bahia, his ignorance of abhidhamma?
Now I am not Bahia, in case someone thinks I am trying to say I am in a league with Bahia.
Fortunately you have had a narrow escape here. :console:
Pulsar wrote: If your teachings are so sophisticated, what good is it to the farmer, or the housewife?
As long as a simple/basic teaching is inside the boundaries of Abhidhamma/Theravada,
any one can begin practicing it.

And the other thing is farmers and housewives are not the only audience of Dhamma.
Dhamma is for the wise, whatever his social status may be.
Pulsar wrote: Sutra Pitaka often says Buddha taught ordinary people
Actually, according to the suttas, this is otherwise.
And it is true that the Blessed One taught many ordinary people, but they can not be considered as ordinary in the sense of wisdom.
Pulsar wrote: ..ordinary people, also, and some became sotapannas right away.
Do you think an ordinary person (not in the sense of social status) can attain sotapanna right away?
May be this is a lack of background knowledge in mere sutta approach. :shrug:
Pulsar wrote: Buddha did not teach academics.
From where did you get this misinformation?
There are stories of many brahmins in the suttas who were more than a modern academic.
Or do you hate academics? Are they some kind of evil doers?

.................................................................
PS:
I think you have misunderstood Applying Abhidhamma as a complicated approach.

It is not complicated. Abhidhamma is for dis-entangling the entanglement.

What some learners have difficulty with is "learning Abhidhamma", and NOT "applying the learned Abhidhamma"

There are step by step learning approaches into Abhidhamma.

As you prefer uncomplicated things, applying Abhidhamma will be uncomplicated for you if you learn Abhidhamma well.
Last edited by Eko Care on Sat Apr 23, 2022 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Re: Abhidhamma is not a Complicated Entanglement

Post by Eko Care »

Ontheway wrote: Sat Apr 23, 2022 2:56 pm
ontheway, on this forum admits since suttas are not clear to the fools or the less wise, Abhidhamma came up with a sophisticated means of conveying the truth.
Does that make sense?
Well, firstly, don't twist the words and Suttas aren't for fools or less wise. But indeed now many online people with modern interpretations or "latest understanding" claimed to be wise ones. But they are not.

Suttanta is delivered by the Teacher aiming at certain group of people or a particular person. It was never intended for everyone most of the time. The Blessed One knows the listener's nature, mind inclination, behaviour, interest, etc....and from here He will expound the suitable teaching layer by layer, step by step. Just like a doctor knows what medicine is suitable for a certain disease. So too, the Blessed One knows what is best for the listener. And people of those days are with Paramis (that's why they born during the age of Buddha).

Inevitably, many Suttas may appear vague and difficult to understand for many people since further explanation is often required. The teaching is indeed complete, but the information contained in Suttanta is not complete. That's a fact. And this is why Abhidhamma Pitaka and Atthakatha are important.

Like I posted before, there are nine aspects of the teaching:

1-the-origin-evolution-and-meaning-of-tipitaka-11-320.jpg

And Sutta (discourse) is only one of them, and Abhidhamma is grouped under Veyyakarana (explanation). Hence, it is misleading to say Suttanta is the only one to follow and others should be rejected.

Abhidhamma was delivered for all Devas from all different realms (making Māyādevaputta as the chief receiver of the teachings), and let Arahant Sariputta Thera, the General of Dhamma disperses it in human realm, in which Venerable Ananda Thera comes to learn it as well, which is why he said he remembered 84,000 dhammakkhandhas in Theragatha.

Bahiranidana chapter of Samantapasadika:
Thus, this word of the Buddha which is uniform in sentiment taken as a whole (without division), and consists of such divisions as the Dhamma and the Vinaya in the divisions such as those into two and so forth, has been laid down as, “This is the Dhamma and this is the Vinaya, these are the first, intermediate, and final sayings of the Buddha, these are the Vinaya, Sutta, and Abhidhamma Pitakas, these are the Nikayas from Digha to Khuddaka, these are the nine angas commencing with sutta and these are the 84,000 Units of the Dhamma,” was rehearsed together by the assembly of self-controlled monks with Mahakassapa as their leader verily observing this distinction.

“And not only this, but other divers distinctions in compilation to be met in the three Pitakas, such as the stanzas containing lists of contents, the arrangement into chapters, noting down the repetitions, and the classification into kindred sections of ones, twos, and so forth, that into groups of kindred topics, and into group of fifties and so forth, have been determined when it was rehearsed together in seven months…”
And the orthodox tradition told us very frankly, though the original rehearsed scriptures in total 84,000 since First council and Second council, then when comes to the Third Council, Arahant Moggaliputta Tissa established Kathavathu in full length based on the Matika given in the scriptures, as he refuted every heretical schools of so-called 'Early Buddhism'. Thus in this way, Arahant Moggaliputta Tissa Thera protected the pure Sasana and the content of debate was arranged into the book of Kathavathu. And Kathavathu later be known as orthodox and this is not contradicting the sutta:

Uttaravipattisuttaṃ (Aṅguttaranikāya)
“It’s astounding and amazing, Bhante, how well you stated this: ‘Whatever is well spoken is all the word of the Blessed One, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One. I myself and others derive our good words from him.’
From this Third Council, the seed of Dhamma was planted in Sri Lanka and many other places, and the entire Pāli Tipitaka rehearsed in the past councils along with commentaries brought to Sri Lanka, where Arahant Mahinda Thera founded Mahavihara. And that is a golden age where there were lots of living Arahants, all equipped with Patisambhida and Iddhi in Sri Lanka. And from Mahavihara, Dhamma was spread out all over Sri Lanka. Eventually, the entire Pāli Tipitaka (not Dipitaka) was written down on Ola leaves during the Fourth Council at Aluvihara. Since then, the scriptures were preserved till present day.

And yes, Abhidhamma can actually makes doctrine easier to understand, to clarify some difficult points in the Dhamma. One such topic is Sakkāyadiṭṭhi. People of EBT group or Secular Buddhism group, often arguing with one another for Sakkāyadiṭṭhi meaning, and thinking that the meaning of this term is decided on consensus. End up with more confusion and papanca. While in Abhidhamma Pitaka - Dhammasangani, a concise answer has been given and all confusion vanished at once.

However, easy or difficult, it is not about the scriptures but depends on the reader's ability of understand. Unlike EBT leader such as Ajahn Brahm who got the guts to say Dhamma is simple, the classical Theravada tradition never hold Dhamma as something easy to be grasped.

Ayacana Suttanta:
This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard to see.
Visuddhimagga:
And it is inherently difficult to comment on the dependent origination, as the Ancients said:

The truth, a being, rebirth-linking,
And the structure of conditions,
Are four things very hard to see
And likewise difficult to teach.
:reading:

Suttanta and Abhidhamma are to be accepted as Dhamma. Suttanta teachings are often using Sammuti concept while Abhidhamma is using Paramattha concept. This is why it was called "Abhidhamma" because the teaching pattern is beyond Sammuti concept. And Abhidhamma teachings, especially Paṭṭhāna, is the proof why Lord Buddha is having sabbaññuta ñāna. Without accepting Abhidhamma, a student is prone to confusion on important Dhamma points due to his/her insufficient understanding (Paññā).
User avatar
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Re: Abhidhamma is not a Complicated Entanglement

Post by Eko Care »

I had noticed that some people tend to believe the Dhamma as a 'very simple and easy thing to follow'.
Nowhere we can find such a mention in the texts.
Pulsar wrote: Stangely there is a sutta in the Anguttara Nikaya, where a monk complains to Buddha of the many Vinaya rules, and how they keep increasing over time, that he cannot handle it. Buddha responds that if he stuck to Sila, Samadhi, and Panna, he does not have to worry about Vinaya rules.
Still he need to keep all the vinaya rules. It is not a simple escape allowed to dismiss the Vinaya rules.

And I guess your way of interpretation is the very reason for you to define the Dhamma as a 'very simple and easy thing to follow'.

Dhamma is said as 'the utmost difficult'(parama dukkaram) in the suttas.

And the Dhamma is considered 'very hard to see' (duddasam) and 'deep'(gambhiram) in the suttas.
Indeed the entrance to the Dhamma is not deep according to the 'Ocean simile', but it gradually becomes very deep according to the same simile.

Some other observations comparing Abhidhamma and Suttas:
bksubhuti wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 3:46 pm
Jason wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:38 am Many scholars also agree that the Abhidhamma Pitaka was a later addition to the original teachings that gradual developed over several centuries. This is not only evident from the fact that the Abhidhamma utilizes words that are found nowhere else in the Canon
Well, I would guess that some sutta nikayas have words that are not used in other sutta nikayas. If this is an argument against the validity of the Abhidhamma, I can maybe ask for some word analysis by one of the TPP programmers. We already have word frequency lists. As you type a word it will show you its frequency. Then when you click on the fuzzy (typing only the base) it will show you where it appears and does not appear. I'm quite sure there are many examples of words not found in the Digha Nikaya which are found in the Samyutta Nikaya and other variations. It is good to know this is an argument against the Abhidhamma because it is easy to refute this one.

On the other hand, there is now a school of Suttanta that are systematically removing suttas one by one (and publishing it as a complete pali canon) because they claim it is not the "word" of the Buddha. This word analysis I propose could probably backfire and only give them more fuel to start removing more and more suttas.
Ontheway wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:11 am (1) Suttas often have background stories in the text, Abhidhamma don't have.

(2) Suttas involved similes, wordplay, exposition. Abhidhamma mainly involved exposition only.

(3) Suttas involved both Sammuti Sacca and Paramattha Sacca. Abhidhamma mainly involved only Paramattha Sacca.

(4) Suttas were taught to different people according to their suitable level of intelligence, understanding and topics. Abhidhamma was taught in only one way.

(5) Suttas were aimed at beings such as gods and human. But Abhidhamma was first mainly taught to the young Māyādevaputta (previous life is Queen Maha Maya, after listening to Abhidhamma, he attained Sotapatti Magga Phala) and all other deities (attained Arahantship accordingly after listening to Abhidhamma). Then, to Arahant Sariputta Thera.

(6) Suttas involved both mundane and supramundane teachings. But Abhidhamma involved only supramundane teachings.

(7) Suttanta Pitaka sometimes gave brief explanation, sometimes long complete exposition. But Abhidhamma Pitaka gave long complete exposition.
bksubhuti wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 12:15 pm It is good to understand the Abhidhamma as a course in Chemistry and the Suttas as a Cooking class.
You really need both to make 10,000 Oreo cookies. My Chemistry Professor used to do consulting for big food companies. He told me that you cannot just multiply a recipe by 1000 and get the desired result. It just does not work. That was where he came in, and probably made lots of money doing so.

Another way.
Many Top Chefs also know about nutrition, and how different foods chemically interact without knowing the full Chemistry as a professor does, but they still know many technical details with how food ingredients work and how they interact with each other.
This would be abhidhamma

The recipe book that a regular person follows and gets a similar result would be suttas.
However, a Top Chef will also use the same recipe book but it will appear different to the trained Chef than the average Joe.

However, Wisdom is the goal and when it comes to really complex things you do need both according to the definition of classical Theravada.

Unlike the Suttanta belief, Classical Theravada Followers praise and follow the Suttas. When Classical Theravada Followers read the Suttas, they understand the background information and the chemistry or how the ingredients work together. This is important.
Ontheway wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 1:02 pm
.....
Unlike the Suttanta belief, Classical Theravada Followers praise and follow the Suttas. When Classical Theravada Followers read the Suttas, they understand the background information and the chemistry or how the ingredients work together. This is important.
So it is, Bhante !

If a Sutta is to be regarded as an element on Periodic Table, then Abhidhamma knowledge is the Periodic Table. Without Abhidhamma knowledge (i.e Khandhas, Ayatanas, Dhatu, etc.), one cannot fully penetrate the Dhamma teachings given by Suttas.

I saw people (in daily life, not on internet) and many people on internet, while claiming to adopt "only-sutta" strategy, many of them keep quarreling with each other (both real in life and internet), each of them gave different opinions on the Suttas, reintepretating the Suttas, and each contradicting one another.

These so called new age "Sutta-only" students, some of them explained Suttas that Buddha supported the "Self" view; some said Buddha taught nothing about non-human beings; some said there is an Antarabhava state; some said Buddha taught that there is a Soul for rebirth, etc. Almost all of them fallen into wrong views unknowingly, thinking that they are saving the Dhammas but what they actually did is polluting the Dhamma.

I was a fool once, thinking that that their way is good and helpful, which only I realized that such movement is nothing but pride, stubbornness, and delusion, thinking that they are equal to Lord Buddha and those ancient Arahants, and dared to make amendment on Dhamma teachings by their own standard. I have wasted many years in this mindset... I was miserable and confused back then.

Till now, I am grateful that I got a chance to amend my misunderstanding and pick up Pāli Tipitaka as a whole for my guide in Dhamma practice. My mind is no longer agitated with doubts, confused with concepts, and I would say my life is improving since then. And I am happy and rejoiced to see people in this forum such as Bhante Subhuti (you), Bhante Pesala, Bhante Dhammanando, Robertk, Zan, etc. are still talk about real Theravada here. All these months, I learned Dhamma from your posts too.
bksubhuti wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 12:16 pm Another analogy is listening to music and being an educated musician with full knowledge in music theory, the structure and notation of music, different beats, timings and measures, the different keys and steps, progressions of chords scales, and other patterns, etc.

Here a listener to music would be suttas
a skilled musician who listens to music would be the commentary and abhidhamma.

When skilled musician as above listens to music, he immediately understands so many things, even if it is a totally new song he has never heard before. I think this is the goal of the dhammacariya degree program in Myanmar. Once a Dhammacariya understands what he knows.. he can read any sutta and deeply understand it.

However, the best is not just listening, but putting into practice and understanding in a deep experiential way.
bksubhuti wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:01 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:00 am
BrokenBones wrote: I have no qualms in voicing my aversion to a lot of the commentarial/Abhidhamma tradition. At the same time you can almost taste the disdain that the suttas are regarded by some Abhidhammists ...
I don’t think Abhidhammikas have disdain for the suttas. That seems unfair to me.
Those who follow the Tipitaka (which include the Vinaya, Suttas and Abhidhamma) do indeed love the Suttas.
I doubt there are Abhidhamma followers who think otherwise. I think this exclusionary view comes from Suttantas since they like to exclude other teachings and think others will do the same. It is a little bit like the phrase.. "If you are a kleptomaniac, you might believe everyone is trying to steal from you."
Ontheway wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 1:11 am Nowadays, many Buddhists from both east and west are so tangled up with their pride and arrogance, thinking themselves being equal to the Buddha or the ancient Arahant Elders, and freely create their own interpretation of the teachings. Usually they will be ended up in spiritual bottleneck or some bizarre interpretation of the teachings that lead to further confusion and "Papanca".

As the Buddha said:
Blind are the people of this world: only a few in this world see clearly (with Insight). Just as only a few birds escape from the net, so also, only a few get to the world of the devas, (and Nibbana).
- Dhammapada Verse 174
robertk wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:03 am
BrokenBones wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 10:32 am

A tradition should not be a closed book, if it was then Abhidhamma & commentaries would never be part of Theravada. There will always be change and review within any thriving tradition... it seems strange that a tradition should be closed down at a certain date and no change allowed.

The Commentaries help to forestall against changes as they clarify the meaning:

IB Horner, PALI TEXT SOCIETY, writes
"
"The prime object of every Commentary is to make the meanings of the words and
phrases in the canonical passages it is elucidating abundantly clear, definite, definitive even....This is to preserve the Teachings of the Buddha as nearly as possible in the sense intended, and as conveyed by the succession of teachers, acariyaparama. Always there were detractors, always there were and still are "improvers" ready with their own notions. Through friends and enemies alike deleterous change and deterioration in the word of the Buddha might intervene for an indefinite length of time. The Commentaries are the armour and protection against such an eventuality. AS they hold a unique position as preservers and interpreters of true Dhamma, it is essential not only to follow them carefully and adopt the meaning they ascribe to a word or phrase each time they commnet on it. They are as closed now as is the Pali canon. No aditions to their corpus or subtractions from it are to contemplated, and no commentary written in later days could be included in it
."" Horner. pxiii Clarifier of the Sweet Meaning" PAli Text Society 1978
Ontheway wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 6:06 am The rejection of Abhidhamma brings you nowhere but only stagnation.

Theravada was never begin with divisions such as sutta-only approach; Abhidhamma included approach; selective approach. If we read the Vinaya Pitaka texts, we know that those wise monks of the past may want to focus on a Pitaka but they always recognise the authority of all three Pitakas.

(1) Those monks who were experts in Vinaya, called Vinayadharā.

(2) Monks specialised in Suttanta memorisation and study were called Suttantikā.

(3) Those well versed in Dhamma doctrines and concepts, engaging "Abhidhammakathaṁ kathenti", were called Dhammakathikā.

This grouping has to do with their inclination or interest. Yet all recognised one another as the heir of Saddhamma.

Theravada means the doctrine of Elders, which actually refers to the Buddha's teachings preserved by the Arahant elders through councils and propagated to other countries during the Third Council. And the most successful missionary was at Sri Lanka. Having founded Mahavihara (The Great Monastery) at Sri Lanka, there the learned elders continue to preserve the Pāli scriptures and eventually wrote down the entire Pāli Tipitaka on Ola leaves. Not Dipitaka, not Ekapitaka.... It was Pāli Tipitaka.

In the past, there happened some monks called themselves Sauntrantikas (rejecting Abhidhamma); but such heresy doesn't lasts long.

Now this rejection of Abhidhamma Pitaka and Vinaya Pitaka (especially Garudhamma section) is revitalised by certain modern monks, e.g. Ajahn Brahm (Australia) rejecting Abhidhamma Pitaka; Ajahn Kukrit (Thailand) rejected Vinaya rules; Bhikkhu Buddhadasa (Thailand) dismissed the entire Pāli Tipitaka tradition and cherry-picking the scriptures; Luang Phor Dhammavuddho (Malaysia) taught the Dhamma as a doctrine involved a transmigrating Soul. These monks shared a similarity: all rejected Abhidhamma.

This will never be part of the authentic Theravada lineage and can only be regarded as watered-down version of Buddhism.
Sidney wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:11 pm .. some aspects of the Abhidhamma are essential to enhance enlightenment;e.g. paticca samupadda
metta,
Sidney
Ontheway wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:21 am Submission to authority (Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha) was never a problem for me.

Rebellious behaviour has something to do with western culture and it has nothing to do with Dhamma. As in Kalama Sutta, though the Buddha taught that we should not accept a teaching based on tradition and authority, but if that teaching accords to wholesomeness and logic (provided he/she is intelligent, honest and with common sense), that should be accepted too.

If rebellious behaviour is to be considered as a virtue, why would Lord Buddha laid down Vinaya rules for monks to obey seniority and preserve harmony in the Sangha community? If innovation of Dhamma teaching is necessary, why would the 500 Arahants of the first generation sit down together and recite the teachings to preserve them?

The Saddhamma has been preserved by the ancient Theras and Theris with great effort and willpower, to simply dismiss them is an indication of lacking gratitude.

Frankly, I don't have confidence at all to these modern monks that know nothing about Abhidhamma Pitaka and at the same time, introducing bizarre interpretation for Suttas. It is very dangerous and it could lead to more Papanca and Micchaditthi.

Five precepts aren't the core of Buddha's teachings. This Sila teaching is just the basic teaching (as a foundation) and even during the absence of Enlightened Ones, this Pancasila teaching can be found among some wise ascetics (we read the Jatakas). And that just by keeping Pancasila doesn't guarantee the Sila keeper is without Micchaditthi.
ssasny wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 4:19 pm It might be valuable to consider the wisdom of the ancient compilers that created the Tipiṭaka, the 3 baskets of teachings. Clearly it was understood that all three were of great value.
Attempts to uncover and assert 'pure dhamma', 'uncorrupted teachings', etc. are, in a sense, good hearted endeavors to remain faithful to the Buddha's teaching. But how likely are we ever to arrive at some pure unadulterated level of discourses?
We can dismiss Abhidhamma, later Buddhism, commentaries, Pāli as a language the Buddha spoke, many suttas, parts of suttas, and so on. Are we then better equipped for enlightenment? Likely not. Maybe, despite the differences between the 3 baskets, the purpose of all 3 is just 1.

Maybe a good question to ask is, do we approach the Canon, and all Buddhist texts, as philologists, practitioners, or both? How can both approaches exist side by side?
Ontheway wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 8:11 am Modern interpretations of the Pali texts are disastrous. Certain monks claimed that there is a definite Self that reincarnate lives to lives, while some others rejected all other realms such as Devaloka. Others claimed that Buddha Dhamma is easy while others mixing it with Mahayana teachings. It is going nowhere.
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Abhidhamma is not a Complicated Entanglement

Post by robertk »

Pulsar wrote: If your teachings are so sophisticated, what good is it to the farmer, or the housewife?
A few decades back I was living in Thailand at a center called Kurunoi (little Kuru) in Ratchaburi.
At this place there were several elderly women living in the huts who were illiterate. The center's owner, khun Thanit, was a follower of the AbhidhammaVipassana teacher, Sujin Boriharnwanaket, and played her talks on loud speaker for several hours a day. Plus there were weekly discussions of Abhidhamma which these women were well equipped to join in.

It is important to know that Abhidhamma describes what is real and occurring every moment in life, and those elements that may arise in the future. So the lists of cittas, cetasikas and rupas are simply details of those elements that should be understood- it is not some academic exercise, and although deep is readily available to any sincere seeker.
User avatar
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Re: Abhidhamma is not a Complicated Entanglement

Post by Eko Care »

Discussing some of the other arguments that some people make:
There is no stipulation in the suttas that one can must be a believer in Abhidhamma to belong to this sect or that sect of Buddhism. Obviously the sects developed later and each had their own Abhidhamma.

Which Abhidhamma is the 'true' one? Is there a true one or is it just people being people and falling in love with their papanca?
There is no Complete Sutta interpretation available independent of other material(pitakas/commentaries/people).

Suttas have universally accepted clear parts as well as unclear parts which can be interpreted in many ways.

Considering these unclear parts, different groups give different interpretations.

Abhidhamma and Commentary gives a certain interpretation, Non-theravada sects give their interpretations and Modern people give their interpretations.

Among those different interpretations available
  • Which one is more trustworthy?
  • Which one is more consistent?
  • Which one is accepted by more wise/virtuous/mature people?
  • Which one is in accordance with Dhamma (clear parts)?

You decide it yourself carefully and wisely.

We have decided Abhidhamma and Commentary tradition is more trustworthy, based on many facts.
(I will post them later if you like.)
Why is there no reference in the suttas regarding the transmission of the Abhidhamma to Sariputta?
How can any one of us know it? (other than what the commentary says)

And how can the 'absence of reference' be a valid argument to refute Abhidhamma?

It is not a valid argument.
santa100 wrote: Sat Apr 23, 2022 11:20 pm
1. Why is there no reference in the suttas regarding the transmission of the Abhidhamma to Sariputta?

2. Was the Buddha keeping it a secret only to be revealed centuries later?

3. Was the Buddha teaching with a closed fist?
For #1, because there was only the Dhamma (in singular) during the earliest period. When the Buddha was alive, there was no segregation into sects or schools, suttas or abhidhamma. There was just the Buddha's Dhamma (his Teaching) and the Vinaya (his set of rules to be observed by monks and nuns).

For #2 and #3, a No for both questions, for the Buddha already made it clear with the "closed teacher’s fist" simile in DN 16

So, back to the OP's Abhidhamma question, it's a bit simpler than we thought. For regardless of whether one is an Abhidhamma-as-a-must advocate or Sutta-only advocate, both must agree on the guidance the Buddha gave to Gotami in AN 8.53, and both should go from there. Does the Abhidhamma guy encounter such qualities like "accumulating", "self-aggrandizement", etc...? then maybe it'd be a good idea s/he should stop feeling too cocky about their vast knowledge in the "Higher Teaching". Similarly, does the Sutta-only guy encounters such qualities like "laziness", "non-persistence", etc...? then maybe it'd be a good idea to stop being complacent with the attitude that the Suttas alone are all that I need. Afterall, it's no coincidence that the Abhidhamma is a precious Basket, right along with the other 2 to make up the Tipitaka
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22404
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Abhidhamma is not a Complicated Entanglement

Post by Ceisiwr »

robertk wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 4:43 am
Pulsar wrote: If your teachings are so sophisticated, what good is it to the farmer, or the housewife?
A few decades back I was living in Thailand at a center called Kurunoi (little Kuru) in Ratchaburi.
At this place there were several elderly women living in the huts who were illiterate. The center's owner, khun Thanit, was a follower of the AbhidhammaVipassana teacher, Sujin Boriharnwanaket, and played her talks on loud speaker for several hours a day. Plus there were weekly discussions of Abhidhamma which these women were well equipped to join in.

It is important to know that Abhidhamma describes what is real and occurring every moment in life, and those elements that may arise in the future. So the lists of cittas, cetasikas and rupas are simply details of those elements that should be understood- it is not some academic exercise, and although deep is readily available to any sincere seeker.
I've heard that amongst the laity the Abhidhamma is most popular amongst women in Thailand. Is that true, based on your experience?
“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.”
User avatar
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Re: Abhidhamma is not a Complicated Entanglement

Post by Eko Care »

A. Bhikkhu wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 11:07 am
DNS wrote:
As per our book, The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts 36, we believe that most of the texts included in what we call the early Buddhist Texts (EBTs) can be regarded as authentic. These texts are:

The 4 main nikayas in Pali
The six early books of the Khuddaka (Dhammapada, Udāna, Itivuttaka, Thera- and Therīgāthā, and Sutta Nipāta)
The Vinaya (especially the patimokkha and portions of the Khandhakas; but excluding the Parivāra, a later addition)
Such parallels to these texts as are found in Chinese, Sanskrit, Tibetan, etc.
All other Buddhist texts are later ...
Right, that is their interpretation and others, but not of all. As far as I can see, to give a brief reply only, this list is too short. For example, the Buddha said in at least one of the main nikāyas (I think it was in AN) that he taught many Jātakas. Where are they supposed to be other than in the Jātaka tale collection (I am not talking about the stories that have been transmitted alongside, just the verses)?

An interesting example is also the Apadāna. Chris Clark in his thesis about this text is interesting. He actually sows that the previous estimates assigning a late date cannot be substantiated, but in the end he still gives it a late date. Similar it is with the Paṭisambhidāmagga. I don't find A.K. Warders account why we should regard it as a late text plausible; I think his main argument was that it is too disparate in nature than to stem from a single author, that is Sāriputta. When Sāriputta was likened even by the Buddha to the main bow of his dispensation, where are all the teachings of the former gone to? Vanished? Just a few discourses here and there? No explanations other than that from the main bow of the dispensation? Unlikely to my mind ...

Even K.R. Norman grants in his "Pāli Literature ..." that the Niddesa may, at least in part, go back to the time of the Buddha and, again, Sāriputta. Now he cites one relatively small inconsistency to point out that it is unlikely that the text is from Sāriputta as a whole, which amazes me. I don't see what is the problem with the Peta- and Vimānavatthus. I think the mythical elements weighed heavily on the decision of stating it to be a non-EBT, but such can be readily found in the texts that Ā. Brahmāli and Sujāto want to see as exclusively early.

As to the Abhidhamma, I also mostly don't agree with the widespread notion of it being necessarily late. Lance Cousins, for example, admits that we simply don't know how much Abhidhamma there was at the time of the Buddha, which is a fair statement. There are numerous alternative explanations that makes good sense as well and fit into the commentarial evidence that the Abhidhamma stems from the Buddha ultimately and from Sāriputta. For example the fact that Sāriputta, to whom it was entrusted, taught a difficult subject matter. Difficult things don't become popular everywhere easily and so some, as is the case today, simply rejected it because it is too difficult, thinking that it cannot have been taught by the Buddha, who just taught simple things. But this is just one way way of looking at the issue.

I believe to see a propensity in Buddhist studies to regard agreement among schools as one of the strongest factors in determining the lateness or otherwise of a text, but I feel the fact is underestimated that the texts in Chinese, for example, are translations that have been produced many centuries later, probably even on the basis of yet other translations in Sanskrit, which may itself ultimately have been translated from the Pāḷi. If we look at what else is included in the mentioned canons in Tibetan and Chinese, why do we give them so much authority? I am speaking mainly of the Mahāyānasūtras etc., which, they say, are also buddhavacana(!). That there was, and still is, a tradition (i.e. the Theravāda) which just keeps things as best as they can as it is, is quite plausible to me.
A. Bhikkhu wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 12:05 pm I agree, traditional Buddhists may at times rely more or less blindly on their teacher or the tradition rather than their own knowledge of the texts. Unfortunately, I come to know this as a human tendency from which modern Buddhist scholars are sometimes not exempted, not wishing to deviate with their opinion too much, maybe not wanting to jeopardize their comfortable income at a university with that. I regret the fact that there are not more traditional Buddhists who can argue fluently in English for their viewpoint. Not because I am more traditional myself, but just to give another view from people who grew up with respect and not disrespect for certain parts of the Tipiṭaka, both possibly leading to distortions along the way of inquiry.
Yes bhante,
Many of us regret about there are less traditional Buddhists who can argue fluently in English at least to to give the view from people who grew up with respect and not disrespect for Abhidhamma and Commentaries.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Abhidhamma is not a Complicated Entanglement

Post by mikenz66 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 8:18 pm I've heard that amongst the laity the Abhidhamma is most popular amongst women in Thailand. Is that true, based on your experience?
Not quite an answer to your question, but a few years ago Ven Dhammanando posted an interesting article with interviews with some Mae Chees who were Abhidhamma teachers in monasteries. I think it's easy to underestimate the importance of Abhidhamma in Thailand if one takes western Ajahn Chah monks as typical of monastics.

I would also observe that the Thai lay people here who have a serious practice are almost exclusively women.

:heart:
Mike
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Abhidhamma is not a Complicated Entanglement

Post by robertk »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 8:18 pm
robertk wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 4:43 am
Pulsar wrote: If your teachings are so sophisticated, what good is it to the farmer, or the housewife?
A few decades back I was living in Thailand at a center called Kurunoi (little Kuru) in Ratchaburi.
At this place there were several elderly women living in the huts who were illiterate. The center's owner, khun Thanit, was a follower of the AbhidhammaVipassana teacher, Sujin Boriharnwanaket, and played her talks on loud speaker for several hours a day. Plus there were weekly discussions of Abhidhamma which these women were well equipped to join in.

It is important to know that Abhidhamma describes what is real and occurring every moment in life, and those elements that may arise in the future. So the lists of cittas, cetasikas and rupas are simply details of those elements that should be understood- it is not some academic exercise, and although deep is readily available to any sincere seeker.
I've heard that amongst the laity the Abhidhamma is most popular amongst women in Thailand. Is that true, based on your experience?
It could well be, but I haven't noticed it myself..
User avatar
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Re: Abhidhamma is not a Complicated Entanglement

Post by Eko Care »

zerotime wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 6:33 pm some type of proto-abhidhamma was learned in Buddha times. Not only because the memorization techniques using chains of terms that we check inside Suttas, which clearly favors an analytic framework of this style. Also because the special titles given for some arhants, like in example "the best in analysis" (case of Dhammadhina) and similar ones. These titles for specific arhants would lack of sense without its specific distinction, in this case the mastery of the analytic teaching, which obviously also implies a background in the ariya progress of these arhants. And some of them were lay followers who joined the order at the anagamin stage.
Yes of course.

Analysis is necessary in every field. It is not something unnecessary.

The top titles for analysis of Dhamma were given to venerable Mahakaccayana and venerable Dhammadinna, by the Exalted One himself.
zerotime wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 7:00 pm well but still this would be the Abhidhamma purpose today. Inside Abhidhamma texts there is no claim to be a new Buddha teaching or some rectification.
From what I know, the people who follow Abhidhamma they believe in the progress by discernment of Dhamma by learning the organization of its factors and processes. Where is the error in that?. I mean this procedure appears inside the Suttas.
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: Abhidhamma is not a Complicated Entanglement

Post by Ontheway »

robertk wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:26 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 8:18 pm
robertk wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 4:43 am
A few decades back I was living in Thailand at a center called Kurunoi (little Kuru) in Ratchaburi.
At this place there were several elderly women living in the huts who were illiterate. The center's owner, khun Thanit, was a follower of the AbhidhammaVipassana teacher, Sujin Boriharnwanaket, and played her talks on loud speaker for several hours a day. Plus there were weekly discussions of Abhidhamma which these women were well equipped to join in.

It is important to know that Abhidhamma describes what is real and occurring every moment in life, and those elements that may arise in the future. So the lists of cittas, cetasikas and rupas are simply details of those elements that should be understood- it is not some academic exercise, and although deep is readily available to any sincere seeker.
I've heard that amongst the laity the Abhidhamma is most popular amongst women in Thailand. Is that true, based on your experience?
It could well be, but I haven't noticed it myself..
Thailand isn't really famed for Buddhist scripture studies (might be true for old times though). It was famed for Thai Buddhist amulets and forest tradition instead. :shrug:
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: Abhidhamma is not a Complicated Entanglement

Post by Ontheway »

Eko Care wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:42 am
zerotime wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 6:33 pm some type of proto-abhidhamma was learned in Buddha times. Not only because the memorization techniques using chains of terms that we check inside Suttas, which clearly favors an analytic framework of this style. Also because the special titles given for some arhants, like in example "the best in analysis" (case of Dhammadhina) and similar ones. These titles for specific arhants would lack of sense without its specific distinction, in this case the mastery of the analytic teaching, which obviously also implies a background in the ariya progress of these arhants. And some of them were lay followers who joined the order at the anagamin stage.
Yes of course.

Analysis is necessary in every field. It is not something unnecessary.

The top titles for analysis of Dhamma were given to venerable Mahakaccayana and venerable Dhammadinna, by the Exalted One himself.
zerotime wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 7:00 pm well but still this would be the Abhidhamma purpose today. Inside Abhidhamma texts there is no claim to be a new Buddha teaching or some rectification.
From what I know, the people who follow Abhidhamma they believe in the progress by discernment of Dhamma by learning the organization of its factors and processes. Where is the error in that?. I mean this procedure appears inside the Suttas.
Yes, analysis is important for many occasions. That's why this Sasana is termed "Vibhajjavada".
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22404
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Abhidhamma is not a Complicated Entanglement

Post by Ceisiwr »

Ontheway wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 12:38 pm
Yes, analysis is important for many occasions. That's why this Sasana is termed "Vibhajjavada".
Vibhajjavada possibly just meant those who make distinctions between the past, present and future as opposed to those who accept tri-temporal realism such as the Sarvāstivādins or the Pudgalavādins.
“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.”
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: Abhidhamma is not a Complicated Entanglement

Post by Ontheway »

Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 12:45 pm
Ontheway wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 12:38 pm
Yes, analysis is important for many occasions. That's why this Sasana is termed "Vibhajjavada".
Vibhajjavada possibly just meant those who make distinctions between the past, present and future as opposed to those who accept tri-temporal realism such as the Sarvāstivādins or the Pudgalavādins.
I understand that usage. Still it fits perfectly how the Sasana proclaimed.
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Abhidhamma is not a Complicated Entanglement

Post by Pulsar »

robertk responded to a comment I made on a different thread.
My Dear Robert, I am surprised you responded to me on this thread, I have always respected you as an honest participant of DW.
Can you pl. go back to the original thread and ask me the same question.
  • The context in which a comment gets made can get butchered when one resorts to moving a comment from one thread to another.
RobertK wrote
Pulsar wrote:
If your teachings are so sophisticated, what good is it to the farmer, or the housewife?
A few decades back I was living in Thailand at a center called Kurunoi (little Kuru) in Ratchaburi.
At this place there were several elderly women living in the huts who were illiterate. The center's owner, khun Thanit, was a follower of the AbhidhammaVipassana
Let us move over to the original thread, where I do not have to explain the details, and context in which it was written.
I was forced to reply to you here. I have no intention of participating in a discussion originated by Eko Care. I would like only robertk to respond to my comment, in this instance. Thank you.
Regards :candle:
PS I will discuss the issue at viewtopic.php?t=9116 where this comment was originally made.
Post Reply