The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
pt1
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:30 am

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by pt1 »

TheDhamma wrote: Or you could hold the Abhidhamma to be of immense value and authentic words of the Theras, but not necessarily see it as Buddhavacana. It was certainly composed and written by Theras, but that does not necessarily make it the exact words of Buddha. They can even be considered highly beneficial and important, but Buddhavacana is another matter.
Hi, the problem though is that the Theras are saying that abhidhamma is Buddhavaccana, so your above view equals to what Sarvastivadins were saying at the time, and Theravadins refuting.

From the CMA quote:
Theravada orthodoxy thus maintains that the Abhidhamma Pitaka is authentic Word of the Buddha, in this respect differing from an early rival school, the Sarvastivadins. This school also had an Abhidhamma Pitaka consisting of seven books, considerably different in detail from the Theravada treatises. According to the Sarvastivadins, the books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka were composed by Buddhist disciples, several being attributed to authors who appeared generations after the Buddha. The Theravada school, however, holds that the Blessed One himself expounded the books of the Abhidhamma, except for the detailed refutation of deviant views in the Kathavatthu, which was the work of the Elder Moggaliputta Tissa during the reign of Emperor Asoka.
Best wishes
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by DNS »

pt1 wrote:[
Hi, the problem though is that the Theras are saying that abhidhamma is Buddhavaccana, so your above view equals to what Sarvastivadins were saying at the time, and Theravadins refuting.
I believe it was the Mahāsāṃghika school that did not want it seen as Canonical. The Sarvastivadins just had disagreements over content. The Theravada term came a little later.

It can be Canonical, but not Buddhavacana in the same way the Milindapanha is Canonical in the Burmese Tipitaka. The Milindapanha is a question and answer format, which explains the Dhamma very well, but a story that takes place several hundred years after the parinibbana of Buddha and thus, not Buddhavacana. That does not diminish its usefulness or inclusiveness with the Canon.
pt1
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:30 am

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by pt1 »

TheDhamma wrote: I believe it was the Mahāsāṃghika school that did not want it seen as Canonical. The Sarvastivadins just had disagreements over content. The Theravada term came a little later.

It can be Canonical, but not Buddhavacana in the same way the Milindapanha is Canonical in the Burmese Tipitaka. The Milindapanha is a question and answer format, which explains the Dhamma very well, but a story that takes place several hundred years after the parinibbana of Buddha and thus, not Buddhavacana. That does not diminish its usefulness or inclusiveness with the Canon.
Hmm, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but as far as I can understand Bhikkhu Bodhi - Sarvastivada view was that abhidhamma was composed by disciples. Isn't this exactly what you said in a previous post? So, it's not about what's canonical, but about who uttered abhidhamma - Sarvastivada says it's the disciples, Theravada (or Staviravada, as I think it was called at the time) says it's the Buddha. It really seems as plain as that to me, please point out if I'm misunderstanding something. Here's that quote again:
Theravada orthodoxy thus maintains that the Abhidhamma Pitaka is authentic Word of the Buddha, in this respect differing from an early rival school, the Sarvastivadins. This school also had an Abhidhamma Pitaka consisting of seven books, considerably different in detail from the Theravada treatises. According to the Sarvastivadins, the books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka were composed by Buddhist disciples, several being attributed to authors who appeared generations after the Buddha. The Theravada school, however, holds that the Blessed One himself expounded the books of the Abhidhamma, except for the detailed refutation of deviant views in the Kathavatthu, which was the work of the Elder Moggaliputta Tissa during the reign of Emperor Asoka.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by DNS »

The Theravada term came shortly after the Third Council. At the time of the Third Council, the early Buddhists were called something like 'Vibhajjavadins.'

The quote from Narada (or Bhikkhu Bodhi) is the classical view. There is also a 'Modern Theravada' view which focuses on the earliest teachings, such as the five Nikayas and the Patimokkha of the Vinaya. Just as in Asian countries there are many different forms of Theravada and some nations even have their own version of the Tipitaka (Burma) and their own patriarch, in many modern nations, we have been mostly arranged by the 'classical' view you quoted above and the 'modern Theravada' which may not see the Abhidhamma and the Commentaries as Buddhavacana.

I do not support litmus tests on what makes a Theravadin. It is very hard to get two people, even if they are married to agree on everything, I can't imagine getting all Theravadins to agree on the Abhidhamma and other issues. :tongue:
pt1
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:30 am

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by pt1 »

Hi, I’m sorry, I’m a little confused now as your point of view seems to shift - are you then saying that Modern Theravada shares the view of Mahasamghikas regarding abhidhamma ? In the previous post you said that they didn’t want abhidhamma as canonical either.

And I don’t yet understand how is your view of abhidhamma authorship different from Sarvastivadin view.

Anyway, I guess the point is - why call ourselves theravadins (or modern theravadins) if our view(s) are in fact identical to those of other sects and not theravada?

I mean, the root of the problem doesn’t seem to be that we as theravadins agree or not agree – therevada position is spelled out in the katthavatthu and commentaries and doesn’t depend on us agreeing with it or not - the problem seems to be that we call ourselves theravadins, while in fact we harbor views of other sects - usually without realizing it, of course. It’s no wonder we can’t agree.

Perhaps it would be more useful for each one of us who would like to call ourselves “theravadins” to read kathavatthu and the commentaries and then honestly see for oneself – “okay, on this matter my view seems to be identical with this sect, and on this matter with this sect, etc.” I mean, why invent a new term like “modern theravada” if a “modern theravadin” in fact adheres to the same old set of views (or a combination of views) already presented by some other sect thousands of years ago? It just seems like lying to ourselves. Anyway, I'm sorry if all this sounds a bit rude, but I'm struggling with these same issues myself.

Best wishes
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by DNS »

The Mahasamghikas and Sarvastivadins no longer exist. We only have the Theravada from the early Buddhist schools. You are taking one snippet of their beliefs and assuming that everything else is also in agreement.

Expecting all Theravadins to even read, let alone accept the Kathavatthu would be placing expectations way too high! :tongue:

Just take a look at any number of discussions on this forum and others: masturbation, sense pleasures, God, etc. And you want the Kathavatthu to be read, understood, and accepted by all?

In my opinion if someone reads, studies and practices by the Nikayas and Patimokkha, takes refuge in the Triple Gem, and practices Theravada meditation, what else could they be called? Theravada is only appropriate; as I said before there will never be 100% agreement on all issues by adherents of any religion or sect or denomination and this applies to Buddhism and Theravada too. If by your definition, a "Modern Theravada" Buddhist is not a Theravadin, then neither is Bhikkhu Bodhi and numerous other bhikkhus and bhikkhunis who have expressed similar sentiments.
"Another danger is to let one's capacity for critical thought fly out the window and buy into everything the suttas say. After all, there is quite a lot in the suttas that can't stand up against modern scientific knowledge. We can't criticize Christian creationists while we become Buddhist variants of the same.”
Ven. Dr. Bhikkhu Bodhi, in interview with Inquiring Mind, Spring 2006 issue

http://www.inquiringmind.com/Articles/Translator.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by kc2dpt »

pt1 wrote:Anyway, I guess the point is - why call ourselves theravadins...
What one calls oneself is of no account whatsoever. All it means when one says "I am Theravadin" is really just "I tend to follow along with Theravada teachings, moreso than I tend to teachings of other religions." The whole question of "What religion are you?" is a bad one. The question used to be,and still should be IMHO, "Who is your teacher?"
I mean, the root of the problem doesn’t seem to be that we as theravadins agree or not agree – therevada position is spelled out in the katthavatthu and commentaries and doesn’t depend on us agreeing with it or not
Agreed. The problem is not what you or I are. The problem is when you or I start attributing views to Theravada that are wrongly attributed.
the problem seems to be that we call ourselves theravadins, while in fact we harbor views of other sects
The problem in my view is when I say "I am Theravadin. I believe X." and then X is not in fact Theravada and then someone reads my statement and comes to the conclusion "Theravada teaches X." What we all need to understand is that one might call themselves Theravadin but that does not automatically make everything that comes out of their mouth Theravada. I just made some banana nutella crepes; that doesn't make them part of Theravada.
Perhaps it would be more useful for each one of us who would like to call ourselves “theravadins” to read kathavatthu and the commentaries...
Perhaps. It couldn't hurt anything. I think it would be more useful if we stopped saying "I am X". After all, as Buddhists aren't we supposed to be getting away from I-making? ;)
Anyway, I'm sorry if all this sounds a bit rude...
Not to me, but then again I'm pretty rude myself. ;)
but I'm struggling with these same issues myself.
I think the entire internet Buddhist community is as well. :?
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by kc2dpt »

TheDhamma wrote:If by your definition, a "Modern Theravada" Buddhist is not a Theravadin, then neither is Bhikkhu Bodhi and numerous other bhikkhus and bhikkhunis who have expressed similar sentiments.
Continuing the theme from my last post... what Bhikkhu Bodhi IS or IS NOT is irrelevant. What is relevant is that whenever he expresses a view at odds with Theravada tradition he is very explicit about it. He does not attempt to substitute his own views for that of Theravada.

What this does is allow one who is interested in Theravada to learn it unpolluted. Then if one wants to deviate one at least knows when and how one is deviating.

To my mind, the whole idea of "Modern Theravada" is a farse. There is no Modern Theravada. Rather there are certain ideas of certain individual modern day monks which are at odds with Theravada. These ideas may be closer to the Buddha's actual intent, or they may not be. Regardless these ideas are not Theravada. The ideas aren't; what the monks are is of no relevance.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by DNS »

Peter wrote: To my mind, the whole idea of "Modern Theravada" is a farse. There is no Modern Theravada. Rather there are certain ideas of certain individual modern day monks which are at odds with Theravada. These ideas may be closer to the Buddha's actual intent, or they may not be. Regardless these ideas are not Theravada. The ideas aren't; what the monks are is of no relevance.
The above of course is an opinion. A Modern Theravadin could have a different opinion and show Sutta references for the position he or she takes. A Classical Theravadin could also show Sutta references for the position he or she takes. The labels help differentiate. Labels may have no relevance or meaning for you, but for some people they do have meaning.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by DNS »

Continuing from my point above, in modern nations where Buddhism is still new, we have been pretty much grouped into Classical and Modern Theravada. That is a far cry and far short from how Theravada is currently segmented in Asia:

from Wikipedia:

The different schools in Theravada often emphasize different aspects (or parts) of the Pali Canon and the later commentaries, or differ in the focus on (and recommended way of) practice. There are also significant differences in strictness or interpretation of the Vinaya.

* Bangladesh:
o Sangharaj Nikaya
o Mahasthabir Nikaya
* Burma:
o Thudhamma Nikaya
+ Vipassana tradition of Mahasi Sayadaw and disciples
o Shwekyin Nikaya
o Dvaya Nikaya or Dvara Nikaya (see Mendelson, Sangha and State in Burma, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, 1975)
* Sri Lanka:
o Siam Nikaya
+ Waturawila (or Mahavihara Vamshika Shyamopali Vanavasa Nikaya)
o Amarapura Nikaya
+ Kanduboda (or Swejin Nikaya)
+ Tapovana (or Kalyanavamsa)
o Ramañña Nikaya
+ Galduwa (or Kalyana Yogashramaya Samsthava)
+ Delduwa
o forest nikaya
* Thailand
o Maha Nikaya
+ Dhammakaya Movement
o Thammayut Nikaya
+ Thai Forest Tradition
# Tradition of Ajahn Chah
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by kc2dpt »

TheDhamma wrote:A Modern Theravadin could have a different opinion and show Sutta references for the position he or she takes. A Classical Theravadin could also show Sutta references for the position he or she takes.
Being able to support one's ideas with a sutta reference does not automatically make those ideas Theravada. This is a common conceit of many so called "modern Theravadins" - that if it can be linked back to a sutta then it is automatically Theravada Buddhism. Every idea from every school of Buddhism can be linked back to the suttas. That's what makes it Buddhism.
The labels help differentiate. Labels may have no relevance or meaning for you, but for some people they do have meaning.
They have relevance and meaning for me. They help me differentiate those with respect for tradition from those without respect for tradition. :tongue: It is one thing to say "Here is this scripture, here is how it is understood by Theravada, and here is how I understand it differently." It is quite another thing to say "I will recast the Theravada tradition in my own image." That is a lack of respect. If you have an idea which is at odds with Theravada then just say "This is my idea." To say "This idea is Theravada, just not classical Theravada, but rather modern Theravada" is meaningless at best and deceptive at worst.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by kc2dpt »

TheDhamma wrote:"The different schools in Theravada often emphasize different aspects (or parts) of the Pali Canon and the later commentaries, or differ in the focus on (and recommended way of) practice. There are also significant differences in strictness or interpretation of the Vinaya."
Notice "reinterpretation of scripture" is not mentioned.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by DNS »

Peter wrote: Being able to support one's ideas with a sutta reference does not automatically make those ideas Theravada. This is a common conceit of many so called "modern Theravadins" - that if it can be linked back to a sutta then it is automatically Theravada Buddhism.
The Theravada does not contradict the Suttas, so Sutta referencing is appropriate at times.
Every idea from every school of Buddhism can be linked back to the suttas. That's what makes it Buddhism.
Really? What about Tantrayana? :tongue:
The labels help differentiate. Labels may have no relevance or meaning for you, but for some people they do have meaning.
They have relevance and meaning for me. They help me differentiate those with respect for tradition from those without respect for tradition. :tongue:
Okay, good, then we are in agreement. It is just a difference of opinion and interpretation on some issues.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by DNS »

Peter wrote:
TheDhamma wrote:"The different schools in Theravada often emphasize different aspects (or parts) of the Pali Canon and the later commentaries, or differ in the focus on (and recommended way of) practice. There are also significant differences in strictness or interpretation of the Vinaya."
Notice "reinterpretation of scripture" is not mentioned.
How else did they come to "significant differences in the interpretation of Vinaya" ?
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Ben,
Ben wrote:The SN is indeed a jewel. Though my forays have been very brief as I am still wading very slowly through the Majjhima.
In terms of tackling the Nikayas in their whole, I actually started with the Samyutta Nikaya, primarily on account of the fact that scholars who have undertaken textual analysis and cross-canon studies (such as Ajahn Sujato) tend to agree that, overall, the Samyutta Nikaya represents the earliest stratum of the Buddha's teaching. To me that made it a logical place to start.

It's also interesting to note that because suttas deal with "abhidhammic" topics such as six sense bases, five aggregates, dependent origination and so on, they're certainly not just "conventional" (pannati) teachings... a charge often laid upon the Sutta Pitaka.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Post Reply