Abhidhamma question

[BrokenBones]

There seems to be a plethora of topics at the moment regarding Abhidhamma and its authenticity, necessity, usefulness and how one is not a true Buddhist if one doesn't embrace its teachings.

Now as far as I am aware, there is no stipulation in the suttas that one must embrace Abhidhamma to be a follower of the Buddha. 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 are dire threats in the Abhidhamma and even on this forum of the fate of people not embracing Abhidhamma (interestingly, very much like the tantric threats).

My question(s)...

Why is there no reference in the suttas regarding the transmission of the Abhidhamma to Sariputta?

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

Was the Buddha teaching with a closed fist?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

My question(s)...

Why is there no reference in the suttas regarding the transmission of the Abhidhamma to Sariputta?

Because the Buddha didn't teach it and had never heard of it. Yet, being knowledgeable about the human condition, he foretold in the Ani Sutta that later works would gain prominence and his own words would be neglected, and the connection to emptiness lost.

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

Was the Buddha teaching with a closed fist?

No.

Metta,
Paul.

[Eko Care]

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.

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

If we consider it from the skeptical person's point of view, then:

• If the tradition is true, then the Blessed One has it revealed it to venerable Sariputta.

• If the tradition is not true, there is nothing to be revealed later.

Was the Buddha teaching with a closed fist?

If you don't have a faith in the Buddha, what is the purpose of above questions in the first place?

Or are you just following Buddhism for academic purposes?

[santa100]

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

[Coëmgenu]

Which Abhidhamma is the 'true' one?

Obviously the ur-version of the lost Mahāsāṃghika Abhidharma was the true one. It's lost. No manuscripts survive, though plenty of evidence for its past existence remains.

Here that, Buddhists? Just give up. The real one's dead and gone.

(This post is deeply sarcastic.)

[Ontheway]

Which Abhidhamma is the 'true' one?

Obviously the ur-version of the lost Mahāsāṃghika Abhidharma was the true one. It's lost. No manuscripts survive, though plenty of evidence for its past existence remains.

Here that, Buddhists? Just give up. The real one's dead and gone.

(This post is deeply sarcastic.)

Isn't Mahasanghika Abhidharma inherited by Mahayana tradition?

[Ceisiwr]

Which Abhidhamma is the 'true' one?

Obviously the ur-version of the lost Mahāsāṃghika Abhidharma was the true one. It's lost. No manuscripts survive, though plenty of evidence for its past existence remains.

Here that, Buddhists? Just give up. The real one's dead and gone.

(This post is deeply sarcastic.)

Isn't Mahasanghika Abhidharma inherited by Mahayana tradition?

No. Not even all Mahasamghikas accepted Mahayana. They had a “schism” over wether to accept those texts or not. You can read here some of what little we do know of their Abhidharma: viewtopic.php?t=40645

[Ceisiwr]

Which Abhidhamma is the 'true' one?

Obviously the ur-version of the lost Mahāsāṃghika Abhidharma was the true one. It's lost. No manuscripts survive, though plenty of evidence for its past existence remains.

Here that, Buddhists? Just give up. The real one's dead and gone.

(This post is deeply sarcastic.)

Isn't Mahasanghika Abhidharma inherited by Mahayana tradition?

You might be interested to know that they too took on the idea of sabhāva.

13) Through wisdom associated with a single thought moment they [Buddhas] know all things (dharmas) – When they reach the path of deliverance, they know the sabhāva of all things at once. They then have no need for further mental series in order to know all things, since they perfectly know the sabhāva of wisdom (prajñā/paññā).

[Ontheway]

Obviously the ur-version of the lost Mahāsāṃghika Abhidharma was the true one. It's lost. No manuscripts survive, though plenty of evidence for its past existence remains.

Here that, Buddhists? Just give up. The real one's dead and gone.

(This post is deeply sarcastic.)

Isn't Mahasanghika Abhidharma inherited by Mahayana tradition?

You might be interested to know that they too took on the idea of sabhāva.

13) Through wisdom associated with a single thought moment they [Buddhas] know all things (dharmas) – When they reach the path of deliverance, they know the sabhāva of all things at once. They then have no need for further mental series in order to know all things, since they perfectly know the sabhāva of wisdom (prajñā/paññā).

Thank you for the information.

[BrokenBones]

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?

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.

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

If we consider it from the skeptical person's point of view, then:

• If the tradition is true, then the Blessed One has it revealed it to venerable Sariputta.

• If the tradition is not true, there is nothing to be revealed later.

Was the Buddha teaching with a closed fist?

If you don't have a faith in the Buddha, what is the purpose of above questions in the first place?

Or are you just following Buddhism for academic purposes?

Since I do have faith in the Buddha the questions I posed are very important. Who is the 'We' that has decided the the Abhidhamma & commentaries are trustworthy? Certainly not the Buddha... obviously it's the sect known as Theravada. I am very grateful for the Theravada sect in preserving the Buddha's words and maintaining a pure sangha... it doesn't mean I have to buy into their more dubious teachings.

Obviously the Buddha taught with an open hand which is why the omission of the transmission 'tale' is indeed important... a glaring omission that no amount of pontification can hide the fatal blow it delivers to Abhidhamma authenticity.

[Eko Care]

Obviously the Buddha taught with an open hand which is why the omission of the transmission 'tale' is indeed important...

Though you try to be confident in the conclusion you made here,
your questions in the OP indicate that
your mind is not confident with it.

[Joe.c]

Just want to add the Sutta which mentioned about complete and pure teaching. Hopefully there is some open minded people can understand.

Please refer to DN 29 Pāsādika Sutta.

...
I, Cunda, am a teacher who has arisen in the world today, perfected and fully awakened. The teaching is well explained and well propounded, emancipating, leading to peace, proclaimed by someone who is fully awakened. My disciples have inquired about the meaning of that good teaching. And the spiritual practice that’s entirely full and pure has been disclosed and revealed to them with all its collected sayings, with its demonstrable basis, well proclaimed wherever there are gods and humans. I am a teacher today who is senior, long standing, long gone forth, advanced in years, and have reached the final stage of life.

I have today disciples who are competent senior monks, middle monks, junior monks, senior nuns, middle nuns, junior nuns, celibate laymen, laymen enjoying sensual pleasures, celibate laywomen, and laywomen enjoying sensual pleasures. Today my spiritual life is successful and prosperous, extensive, popular, widespread, and well proclaimed wherever there are gods and humans.

Of all the teachers in the world today, Cunda, I don’t see even a single one who has reached the peak of material possessions and fame like me. Of all the spiritual communities and groups in the world today, Cunda, I don’t see even a single one who has reached the pinnacle of material possessions and fame like the mendicant Saṅgha. And if there’s any spiritual path of which it may be rightly said that it’s endowed with all good qualities, complete in all good qualities, neither too little nor too much, well explained, whole, full, and well propounded, it’s of this spiritual path that this should be said.
...

This spiritual path is well explained, whole, full, and well propounded.

And more on DN 29:

... Seeing what does one not see?
One who sees this: a spiritual path endowed with all good qualities, complete in all good qualities, neither too little nor too much, well explained, whole, full, and well propounded.

One who does not see this: anything that, were it to be removed, would make it purer.

One who does not see this: anything that, were it to be added, would make it more complete.

Thus it is rightly said: ‘Seeing the teaching, but one does not see it. ...’

So anyone who add or remove anything from Sutta, Buddha said he/she didn't see the path that he taught.

Final note, if you want to keep abhidhamma, it is ok too.

But, Please when study sutta, put aside the abhidhamma. Otherwise the understanding can become corrupted.

Don’t take my word, please try to practice abhidhamma and compare with Sutta. See if you can verify the result here and now. No need to wait.

[Eko Care]

So anyone who add or remove anything from Sutta, Buddha said he/she didn't see the path that he taught.

The word 'Sutta' is described as 'Three Baskets' in the Atthakata.

But, Please when study sutta, put aside the abhidhamma. Otherwise the understanding can become corrupted.

What the Atthakata says is the otherwise.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

So anyone who add or remove anything from Sutta, Buddha said he/she didn't see the path that he taught.

The word 'Sutta' is described as 'Three Baskets' in the Atthakata.

But, Please when study sutta, put aside the abhidhamma. Otherwise the understanding can become corrupted.

What the Atthakata says is the otherwise.

Don't you think that re-definition is a tad self-serving?

Metta,
Paul.

[BrokenBones]

Obviously the Buddha taught with an open hand which is why the omission of the transmission 'tale' is indeed important...

Though you try to be confident in the conclusion you made here,
your questions in the OP indicate that
your mind is not confident with it.

I'm afraid that my sarcastic & rhetorical questions seem to have befuddled you... apologies.

I am extremely confident in the Buddha and his open handed teachings.