- This topic has 13 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
-
I noticed this before but if abhidhamma was “invented” by generations of monks after Buddha Gotama, I would expect it to contain many inconsistencies with the Suttas. But so far, I have not seen any significant contradiction.
Additionally, the so-called “scholars” who make those statements are non-ariyas who frequently make mistakes in their translations of the Pali Tipitaka. So I wouldn’t trust them. That being said, it has been stated that Abhidhamma in its final form was completed in the 4th Buddhist Council, almost 5 centuries after our Sammasambuddha. But the main framework was already there in the 1st council:
“21. Pañcasatikakkhandhaka” section of the “Cūḷavagga” of the Vinaya Piṭaka contains a small section at the end called Tassuddānaṁ which summarizes the events of the First Buddhist Council. It contains this verse: “Upāliṁ vinayaṁ pucchi, suttantānandapaṇḍitaṁ; Piṭakaṁ tīṇi saṅgītiṁ,akaṁsu jinasāvakā.”
- That says: “Venerable Upāli recited the Vinaya (Upāliṁ vinayaṁ pucchi,) Ven. Ananda recited the Suttas (suttantānandapaṇḍitaṁor sutta ānanda paṇḍitaṁ), and all of the 500 Arahants present recited ALL THREE Piṭaka (Piṭakaṁ tīṇi saṅgītiṁ,akaṁsu jinasāvakā.)
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
And in digha Nikaya, 16.6.1
The Buddha said that after he had mahaparinibbana, Only the Dhamma and Vinaya will be our teachers.
Dear Waisaka
So would you say that when you were in school and refered to your teacher as a teacher, you were actually lying? 😊
In my humble opinion, if the Sutta is your light, use the Sutta. If the whole Tipitakka is your light, use the whole Tipitakka. There is a saying: the more the words, the less the meaning. Only 3 words are necessary: anicca, dukkha, anatta.
May all have a true light in their lives. 🙏
Namo Buddhaya ☸️
-
“The Buddha said that after he had mahaparinibbana, Only the Dhamma and Vinaya will be our teachers. “
- There is no contradiction. Abhidhamma is also Dhamma.
- Abhidhamma is the same as Dhamma in the Sutta Pitaka, but it is presented a bit differently (systematically and analytically).
- Here is a rough analogy that can give the idea. To drive a car, one does not need to understand the physics and engineering of how it is built. However, if the car breaks down while driving, that person cannot fix even a minor problem and could get stuck. However, someone with a bit of knowledge about the car may be able to fix a minor issue. A mechanic with more knowledge about the car’s construction may be able to fix more problems.
- That is how we should look at Abhidhamma. The more Abhidhamma knowledge one has, the easier it becomes to resolve some issues that may arise while studying suttas.
- Also see “Abhidhamma – Introduction.”
P.S. As discussed in that post, Abhidhamma was not taught to the public at the time of the Buddha. The Buddha described the Abhidhamma framework to Ven. Sariputta, and it took over 200 years for bhikkhus to develop the Abhidhamma theory fully. Only ready parts were recited in the early Sangayanas (Buddhist Councils), and the completed Abhidhamma Pitaka was recited in the third Council about 250 years after the Parinibbana of the Buddha. See #7 in the post.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
I havent read abhidhamma yet, but why would the Buddha not teach abhidhamma to anyone except sariputta ? (And maybe the students of sariputta and deities?).
I understand about inclinations, the inclinations of sariputta and his students to analytical knowledge, still, if abhidhamma had value, i dont see why it had to be posponed.Why only teach the framework instead of the full thing.
If it is true that abhidhamma was only valuable to a few monks and it will only confuse the others, why theravada is teaching it to all monks?.
Regards
-
“I haven’t read Abhidhamma yet..”
1. That is one reason why you don’t understand why teaching Abhidhamma in the days of the Buddha was impossible.
- Also, Abhidhamma was not necessary in those days. Most people could grasp the essence of Buddha’s teachings without learning Abhidhamma. They had fulfilled paramita in previous lives and did not need much help completing that process. Many people only listened to one or two discourses and attained magga phala.
2. Abhidhamma is more suited for the current environment.
- You may want to read the post “Abhidhamma—Introduction” and also take a look at Ref.1 there. It is a free PDF file of a book by Bhikkhu Bodhi. Then, you will understand that learning Abhidhamma takes a while and is almost impossible to learn by only listening.
- Furthermore, it took almost 250 years to finish compiling the Abhidhamma theory, as explained in the post.
- After that, rereading the above comment may help clarify the situation further.
-
Thanks Lal for the fast answer:
-if abhidhamma was so intellectual why it was taught to deities? I would think they where more intuitive instead of conceptual.
-i get that at the beggining of the sasana there where quick attainments, but at later years according to suttas fewer and fewer saints, wouldnt have been useful then?
-so you think abhidhamma was meant to be a teaching for books?
Im just throwing thoughts haha
Regards
-
-
The value of something can’t be discerned by throwing guesses and making assumptions, but through rigorous examination. I have made this mistake before. If one sees any issues/contradictions of Abhidhamma concepts with the rest of the canon, they can bring it up. Else, who knows (or cares?) what precisely happened 2000+ years ago.
-
Some years back I was surprised to learn of Buddhist practitioners including well respected Theravada teachers that don’t believe / view the Abhidhamma as the Buddha’s teachings and belonging to the Tipitaka. At that time learning of such circumstances, I had the thought / idea to write an essay or some form of writing to piece together what evidence I can find from the sutta’s or Pali Tipitaka based on a scholarly approach / methodology to present hoping it may help to show the Abhidhamma is part of the Buddha’s teachings and belongs to the Tipitaka. For myself I don’t need any prove or evidence from a scholarly approach to see / believe the Abhidhamma is the Buddha’s teachings and the teachings belongs to the Tipitaka. I find it hard not to see how the Abhidhamma is the Buddha’s teachings. Back some years ago, I mentioned to Lal my intention and what I had in mind. Lal provided tremendous help, in fact most of the credit belongs to Lal for the information that’s about to be shared / provided in this writing.Initially had bigger idea / plan for the writing, but as time went on and started to believe the futility of the endeavor, I lost the motivation to follow through with my bigger idea. But now not wanting to waste the time and effort that was initially put into the endeavor and hope the information can be of use to others. Over the years having observed various discussions and information / materials on the authentication of the Abhidhamma as the Buddha’s teachings, I hope to present three points that I have observed to be rarely or not been mentioned / discussed besides here on PD and believe can make strong cases to support the Abhidhamma to be the Buddha’s teachings, once again from a scholarly approach / methodology. . .
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.
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.