The first point being cited from Bhikkhu Bodhi’s “A comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma” is not intended to make a strong case for the Abhidhamma was “unquestionably” expounded by the Buddha as described by Buddhist orthodox sources / materials but hope to show / present there’s a strong case to be made that the Buddha did spend time in the Tavatimsa heaven and on the pandukambala or Sakka’s throne. As for whatever the Buddha did or taught in the Tavatimsa heavens, others are free to come to their own conclusions.
Please note the word “Pandukambala” and “Paricchattaka tree”.
From Bhikkhu Bodhi’s A comprehensive manual of Abhidhamma, “according to this tradition, just prior to his seventh annual rain retreat the Blessed one ascended to the Tavatimsa heaven and there, seated on the PANDUKAMBALA stone at the foot of the Paricchattaka tree, for the three months of the rains he taught the Abhidhamma to the deva’s . . .”
Sakka is the ruler of the Tavatimsa heaven and according to Buddhasasana Concise Pali – English dictionary and other sources, the “Pandukambala” is Sakka’s throne. A reference is made in the Lomasakaṅgiyabhaddekarattasutta (MN 134) of the Buddha having spent time in the Tavatimsa heaven and on the Pandukambala or Sakka’s throne.
Majjhima Nikāya 134 Lomasakaṅgiyabhaddekarattasutta
Note the Pali words paṇḍukambalasilāyaṁ and pāricchattakamūle.
“Ekamidaṁ, bhikkhu, samayaṁ bhagavā devesu tāvatiṁsesu viharati pāricchattakamūle paṇḍukambalasilāyaṁ. Tatra bhagavā devānaṁ tāvatiṁsānaṁ bhaddekarattassa uddesañca vibhaṅgañca abhāsi:’
“This one time, the Buddha was staying among the gods of the thirty-three at the root of the Shady Orchid Tree on the stone spread with a cream rug. There he taught the summary recital and the analysis of the one who has one fine night to the gods of the thirty-three:”
Something I would like to mention is the translations / interpretations I sometimes use for online discussions doesn’t necessary mean I completely agree with or take them to be definite, but for convenience sake. If others take other translations / interpretations to be more accurate / correct / convincing, I would be open to others translations / interpretations. Going back to the Lomasakaṅgiyabhaddekarattasutta (MN 134), I’m not entire sure if “paṇḍukambalasilāyaṁ” is being translated as “stone spread with a cream rug”, but for myself I take paṇḍukambalasilāyaṁ to mean the same as pandukambala, some form of stone and Sakka’s throne.
Pandukambala definition from wisdomlib
Paṇḍukambala refers to: a light red blanket, orange-coloured cloth also a kind of ornamental stone, Sakka’s throne (p. -k. -silā) is made of it.
I’m not sure what “p. -k –silā) represents, but I believe it’s the same silā in “paṇḍukambalasilāyaṁ”.
This is quoted from page 85 The Buddhist Cosmos A Comprehensive Survey of the Early Buddhist Worldview; according to Theravāda and Sarvsātivāda sources*. “*By the power of this kamma, the one hundred yojana high Pāricchattaka Tree appeared inTāvatiṃsa, together with Sakka’s throne, the paṇḍukambalasilā, a huge stone slab described as being under the shade of the great tree.”
“As for Sakka, he was fearful and despondent, for he would now lose all the greatness of a Sakka: the Tāvatiṁsa Realm, which is 10,000 leagues wide; the Vejayanta palatial mansion that is 1,000 leagues tall; the Sudhammā Assembly Hall, 300 leagues wide, for listening to the Dhamma; the coral tree (paricchattaka) which is 100 leagues high; the Paṇḍukambala stab of emerald, which is 60 leagues long, 50 leagues wide and 15 leagues high;”
Taking the two words paṇḍukambalasilāyaṁ and pāricchattakamūle from the Lomasakaṅgiyabhaddekarattasutta (MN 134) and the commentaries made on them from the last two references, I get the idea that paṇḍukambalasilāyaṁ is sakka’s thorne and it’s “under the shade of the great tree” or the pāricchattakamūle. It’s my belief that another way to explain or interpret the line of “Ekamidaṁ, bhikkhu, samayaṁ bhagavā devesu tāvatiṁsesu viharati pāricchattakamūle paṇḍukambalasilāyaṁ from the Lomasakaṅgiyabhaddekarattasutta (MN 134) can be something along the line of “This one time, the Buddha was staying among the gods of the thirty-three on Sakka’s throne (paṇḍukambalasilāyaṁ) sited at the root of the pāricchattakamūle. There he taught the summary recital and the analysis of the one who has one fine night to the gods of the thirty-three. “
There’s also the mentioning of pandukambala in the Khuddaka Nikāya Milindapañha (KN) and something I am aware of the word “Abhidhamma” used in the sutta’s might not actually mean / represent the same Abhidhamma that is part of the Tipitaka we have today and I would actually agree with those that says or believes so. But in the Milindapañha, it’s my belief the word “Abhidhamma” does mean / represent the Abhidhamma that is part of the Tipitaka we have today. I have observed there are Buddhist practitioners that don’t take the Milindapañha to be authoritative or as the Buddha’s teachings due to various reasons / arguments with the main one being it was later added material which I can understand from their thinking / position. For myself I can’t say I have read over the Milindapanha “very carefully”, but I have skimmed through all of it and pretty much everything I can understand from the translations of the work, I don’t see any major contradictions / inconsistencies comparing with what I understand of the Buddha’s teachings. Anyways . . . from the Milindapanha.
“and again in the heaven of the Thirty-Three at the preaching of the Abhidhamma (abhidhammadesanāya) on the Paṇḍu Kambala Rock eight hundred millions of the gods”
Then the venerable Rohaṇa thought thus to himself: ‘In what ought I first to instruct him, in the Discourses (Suttanta) or in the deeper things of the faith (Abhidhamma)?’ and inasmuch as he saw that Nāgasena was intelligent, and could master the Abhidhamma with ease, he gave him his first lesson in that.
And the venerable Nāgasena, after hearing it repeated but once, knew by heart the whole of the Abhidhamma—that is to say, the Dhamma Saṅgaṇi, with its great divisions into good, bad, and indifferent qualities, and its subdivisions into couples and triplets —the Vibhaṅga, with its eighteen chapters, beginning with the book on the constituent elements of beings—the Dhātu Kathā, with its fourteen books, beginning with that on compensation and non-compensation—the Puggala Paññatti, with its six divisions into discrimination of the various constituent elements, discrimination of the various senses and of the properties they apprehend, and so on —the Kathā Vatthu, with its thousand sections, five hundred on as many points of our own views, and five hundred on as many points of our opponents’ views—the Yamaka, with its ten divisions into complementary propositions as to origins, as to constituent elements, and so on—and the Paṭṭhāna, with its twenty-four chapters on the reason of causes, the reason of ideas, and the rest. And he said : ‘That will do, Sir. You need not propound it again. That will suffice for my being able to rehearse it. ’
In the same sutta, it mentions about the 7 books of the Abhidhamma:
“Then Nāgasena went to the innumerable company of the Arahats, and said: ‘I should like to propound the whole of the Abhidhamma Piṭaka, without abridgement, arranging it under the three heads of good, bad, and indifferent qualities.’ And they gave him leave. And in seven months the venerable Nāgasena recited the seven books of the Abhidhamma in full.”
I understand what’s been presented so far to help authenticate the Abhidhamma as the Buddha’s teachings and the teachings belongs to the Tipitaka is not sufficient since myself have taken into account of as many arguments / reasoning I have come across on why the Abhidhdamma is not the Buddha’s teachings, the main one once again being pretty much all the materials / text / commentaries on the Abhidhamma comes from later periods / added materials according to some Buddhist practitioners standards / position / views. The next and second strongest point / reference I can make to authenticate the Abhidhamma as the Buddha’s teachings comes from the Theravada Vinayapitaka but it can also be said the source comes from a later period (later than the 4th council, according to Wikipedia and some scholars . . .) From the Parivāra Samuṭṭhānasīsasaṅkhepa
Parivāra 3. Samuṭṭhānasīsasaṅkhepa
Sabbasattuttamo sīho,piṭake tīṇi desayi;Suttantamabhidhammañca,vinayañca mahāguṇaṁ.
Please note the words “pitake tini”. I haven’t studied or claim to be well-versed in Pali but to me it’s quite obvious what “pitakam tini” means without having to rely on translations or Pali dictionary. What I can see is that Tini means three and pitaka means basket or collections . . . I can say the English translation “three collection or basket” can be open for debate, but for myself, Tini and pitakam together means the Three Basket or the Tipitaka which we have today which includes the Abhidhamma.
Translation by Bhikkhu Brahmali:
“The best of all creatures, the lion,Taught the three Collections:The Discourses, and the Philosophy, And the Monastic Law, of great quality.”
Translation by I.B. Horner:
“The best of all creatures, the lion, taught the three Piṭakas:<br /><br /><br />
The Suttantas, the Abhidhamma, and the Vinaya—a great special quality.”
Whom the lion or “siho” is being referred to, it’s the Buddha and one can cross examine this from the sutta’s.
Finally the strongest case I have come across to present that supports the Abhidhamma is the Buddha’s teachings and meant to be part of the Pali Tipitaka we have today is once again found in the Vinayapitaka and if I’m not mistaken, this was recited from the “First Buddhist council” where “pitakam tini” is also cited.
Theravāda Vinayapiṭaka Cūḷavagga 21. Pañcasatikakkhandhaka
“Upāliṁ vinayaṁ pucchi,suttantānandapaṇḍitaṁ;Piṭakaṁ tīṇi saṅgītiṁ,akaṁsu jinasāvakā. “
“He asked Upāli about the Monastic Law, And the wise Ānanda about the discourses; Communal recitation of the three Collections, Was done by the disciples of the Victor.”
If others take the source to be from the First Buddhist council, last thing I can really say which can be open up for debate is what are the three collections that was communal recited? Or more specifically what was the third collection that was recited since it can be almost universally agreed upon two of the three collections would be the vinaya and suttas. But regardless what other’s views / position is, there’s no doubt for myself one of the three collections would be at least the foundational bases for the writing / teachings of the Abhidhamma we have today. Once again much credit and merits to Lal for the information / finds presented in this post. May we all living beings attain the supreme bliss of Nibbana.