what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma
as far as i can understand they use different words
to express samething
what is the purpose of explaining samething with differents words
a person need to learn extra words for same explanation
would it be easy just use the words used by most people?
what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma
Re: what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma
Hell Gena1480,
Have a look at this and see what you think:
What is the Abhidhamma?
http://www.buddhanet.net/whatabhi.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
with metta
Chris
Have a look at this and see what you think:
What is the Abhidhamma?
http://www.buddhanet.net/whatabhi.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
Re: what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma
Personally, I think that the Abhidhamma Pitaka is essentially a systematization of certain concepts and terms found throughout the Sutta Pitaka — with additional concepts and terms added in for logical consistency — that was possibly intended to act as a pedagogical tool, as well as an attempt to describe the ultimate nature of reality. 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, but also from the fact that each school had their own version (some even rejecting it altogether). As such, I don't think that the Abhidhamma Pitaka as we know it today was taught by the Buddha, although I do think that parts of it may have been.Gena1480 wrote:what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma
as far as i can understand they use different words
to express samething
what is the purpose of explaining samething with differents words
a person need to learn extra words for same explanation
would it be easy just use the words used by most people?
"Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya" (AN 7.58).
leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)
leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)
Re: what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma
Hey guys,
This is the Classical Mahavihara Theravada - Abhidhamma sub-forum. Not the Dhamma-free-for-all section.
Alan, if you want to debate the third Pitaka of the Buddhist Canon, please go to this thread:
The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2169" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
with metta
Chris
This is the Classical Mahavihara Theravada - Abhidhamma sub-forum. Not the Dhamma-free-for-all section.
Alan, if you want to debate the third Pitaka of the Buddhist Canon, please go to this thread:
The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2169" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
Re: what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma
Offtopic posts moved to:
The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2169
Please see:
Guidelines for the Abhidhamma forum
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=374" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Mike
The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2169
Please see:
Guidelines for the Abhidhamma forum
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=374" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Mike
Re: what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma
I am not a scholar of Abhidhamma; so I am not in a position to discuus it in length. What I understand about Abhidhamma is as follows:Gena1480 wrote:what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma
as far as i can understand they use different words
to express samething
what is the purpose of explaining samething with differents words
a person need to learn extra words for same explanation
would it be easy just use the words used by most people?
1. It is first taught to celestial beings as it is more profound and difficult to understand than Suttas.
2. It is the first of the three baskets of Pitaka to disappear from humans when the Gotama Buddha's dispensation period starts to wean.
3. It is said to be the most potent aspect of the Buddha's teachings as it is mentioned that the Buddha started to emit rays and aura only when He
reflected the Pathana of the Abhidhamma with His omnipotent 'Sabinutta nana' after He became the Buddha.
4. and lastly, some aspects of the Abhidhamma are essential to enhance enlightenment;e.g. paticca samupadda
metta,
Sidney
Re: what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma
(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.
(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.
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.
https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.
https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
Re: what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma
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.
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.
Re: what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma
.....
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.
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.
https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.
https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
Re: what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma
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.
Re: what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma
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?
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?
-
- Posts: 346
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:30 pm
Re: what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma
We can recognize temporal strata without needing to throw away anything. Knowing the temporal strata of a text helps us put it into context and understand more clearly what the concerns of the specific text is, and how those may be aligned or misaligned with the intent of the earlier teachings. Nonetheless, pretty much all temporal strata from the suttas to the commentaries (atthakatha) have useful information for understanding the suttas. Sometimes later strata also have questionable information as well which is difficult to square away with earlier strata, but that’s not a reason to reject them in their entirety.
So I’d like people to have some nuance with how they approach these things, neither accepting everything nor rejecting everything in the later strata. Clearly the atthakatha is critical for translation at the very least, with most modern translators referring to it for tricky words/passages. Also clear IMO is that not every word in the commentaries is factually correct, and some interpretations are off base.
The abhidhamma pitaka is especially interesting because it usually is viewed solely through the eyes of the late (after atthakatha) commentarial tradition. But it seems to me that most of the early abhidhamma is fairly in line with the suttas.
So I’d like people to have some nuance with how they approach these things, neither accepting everything nor rejecting everything in the later strata. Clearly the atthakatha is critical for translation at the very least, with most modern translators referring to it for tricky words/passages. Also clear IMO is that not every word in the commentaries is factually correct, and some interpretations are off base.
The abhidhamma pitaka is especially interesting because it usually is viewed solely through the eyes of the late (after atthakatha) commentarial tradition. But it seems to me that most of the early abhidhamma is fairly in line with the suttas.
Re: what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma
Thank you for your important points. This last one seems crucial and not often mentioned.waryoffolly wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 5:33 pm
The abhidhamma pitaka is especially interesting because it usually is viewed solely through the eyes of the late (after atthakatha) commentarial tradition. But it seems to me that most of the early abhidhamma is fairly in line with the suttas.
When I was first taught Abhidhamma, it was via the Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha, which is very common. However, when I later started to look at the canonical Abhidhamma books, I found that things were a bit different there. Certainly not as neat and tidy.
So, 'abhidhamma' is far from a monolithic thing. I also must say that, along with aṭṭhakathā, many who dismiss it have not really spent much time with it at all.
Re: what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma
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.
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.