Reliability of Mahāvihāra Commentaries?... Right View

[Kenshou]

There is a story in a Commentary that I heard (haven't read it first hand) of a monk under a past Buddha who rejected the Abhidhamma and told people that it was not the teaching of the Buddha. He burned in hell because of it, since abhidhamma is the epitome of dhamma. That should be a warning for all you naysayers. Keep in mind, the men compiling the Commentaries were not allowed to lie, and certainly would not make these things up for fear of extremely negative unwholesome kamma.

This is bull**** on top of more **** on top of blind faith. If I listened to everyone who told me I'd burn in hell for this or that I'd never get anything done. It's such an awful strategy I'm sincerely baffled that you'd even try it.

[mikenz66]

Hi Geoff,

I feel that expressing my opinion that you are reading too much philosophy into the texts is a valid point to raise, especially in the light of your "existential angst" comments that seemed to be based on a mis-reading of the Visuddhimagga.

BTW, if it's a misreading (and I'm not saying that it is or isn't) it's Mahāsi Sayādaw's misreading. Visuddhiñāṇakathā, section on bhayatupaṭṭhāñāṇa:

• At that time, his mind itself is gripped by fear and seems helpless.

And from the endnotes of this section (written by Ven. Ñāṇapoṇika Thera, but carefully scrutinized by Mahāsi Sayādaw):

• The word bhaya has the subjective aspect of fear and the objective aspect of fearfulness, danger. Both are included in the significance of the term in this context.

I'll leave it to experts on the commentaries to comment on exactly how well Mahasi Sayadaw's comments line up with the Commentaries. I think Robert's point is that when fearfulness of formations is understood properly there is no fear.

However, whether or not the mind is gripped by fear is different different question from reading philosophical baggage into the commentaries.

But, certainly, most descriptions of the progress of insight that I've read/heard include both highs (believing one is enlightened at the rise and fall stage) and llows (in the following stages).

Mike

[mikenz66]

Hi Geoff,

You started off this thread, in part, with:

It might be worth discussing to what degree the Mahāvihāra commentarial tenets are reliable and accurate references regarding the teaching of the Buddha (Buddhasāsana), particularly as it pertains to right view (sammādiṭṭhi), as right view is essential for right meditation (sammāsamādhi).

Specifically, it seems that there are three interrelated principles that are central to the Mahāvihāra commentarial view:

• 1.the dhamma theory (dhammavāda)
  2.the theory of radical momentariness (khaṇavāda)
  3.the theory of two truths (sammutisacca & paramatthasacca)

I'm going to take the liberty of quoting some of Tiltbillings' favorite quotes. Roert asked about this on one of the other threads, but it might be better to consider here whether dhammas are actually assumed to be " ultimate little atom thingies", or not.

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 059#p44065" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Greetings Tilt,

The question of why is the Abhidhamma so quickly dismissed by some is an interesting one. Often, it seems to me, ignorance is the answer.

Ignorance of what though, exactly?

Primarily, what the texts actually say. Often we see the dhamma notion of the Abhidhamma get portrayed as being ultimate little atom thingies. Piatigorsky, in his studies of the Theravadin Abhidhamma Pitaka texts (THE BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY OF THOUGHT 1984, 181) points out dharmas are not substances; they are not 'things' in and of themselves:

We simpy cannot say that 'a dharma is... (a predicate follows)', because a dharma, in fact, 'is' no thing, yet [it is] a term denoting (not being) a certain relation or type of relation to thought, consciousness or mind. That is, dharma is not a concept in the accepted terminological sense of the latter, but a purely relational notion.

By arranging the mental factors in relational groups a subordinate synthetical element has been introduced into the mainly analytical Dhammasangani. By so doing, the danger inherent in purely analytical methods is avoided. This danger consists in erroneously taking for genuine separate entities the “parts” resulting from analysis, instead of restricting their use to sound practical method with the purpose of classifying and dissolving composite events wrongly conceived as unities. Up to the present time it has been a regular occurrence in the history of physics, metaphysics, and psychology that when the “whole” has been successfully dissolved by analysis, the resultant “parts” themselves come in turn to be regarded as little “wholes.”

In the Pali tradition it is only for the sake of definition and description that each dhamma is postulated as if it were a separate entity; but in reality it is by no means a solitary phenomenon having an existence of its own. . . . If this Abhidhammic view of existence, as seen from its doctrine of dhammas, cannot be interpreted as a radical pluralism, neither can it be interpreted as an out-and-out monism. For what are called dhammas -- the component factors of the universe, both within us and outside us -- are not fractions of an absolute unity but a multiplicity of co-ordinate factors. They are not reducible to, nor do they emerge from, a single reality, the fundamental postulate of monistic metaphysics. If they are to be interpreted as phenomena, this should be done with the proviso that they are phenomena with no corresponding noumena, no hidden underlying ground. For they are not manifestations of some mysterious metaphysical substratum, but processes taking place due to the interplay of a multitude of conditions. http://www.zeh-verlag.de/download/dhammatheory.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"'They are dhammas because they uphold their own nature [sabhaava]. They are dhammas because they are upheld by conditions or they are upheld according to their own nature' (Asl.39). Here 'own-nature' would mean characteristic nature, which is not something inherent in a dhamma as a separate ultimate reality, but arise due to the supporting conditions both of other dhammas and previous occurrences of that dhamma."

"The most significant new idea in the commentaries is the definition of a 'principle' or element (dharma): dharmas are what have (or 'hold', 'maintain', dhr. is the nearest equivalent in the language to the English 'have') their own own-nature (svabhaava). It is added that they naturally have this through conditions."

Dhammas in the Theravada Abhidhamma Pitaka are "ultimate things" only as a way of talking aspects about the relational flow of experience, not in terms of describing static realities. In other words, dhammas are empty of self.

Interesting stuff and actually useful stuff in understanding what the Buddha taught.

If it can be argued that it's not the words of the Buddha (even if possibly derived from them) what makes their dismissal any different to the dismissal of the Mahayana Sutras? Why would the teachings of "our elders" be somehow inherently better than the teachings of "their elders"?

Our elders kept, for the most part, to a particular understanding of the Dhamma; the Mahayanists, ah, well, did something else.

Mike

[tiltbillings]

There is a story in a Commentary that I heard (haven't read it first hand) of a monk under a past Buddha who rejected the Abhidhamma and told people that it was not the teaching of the Buddha. He burned in hell because of it, since abhidhamma is the epitome of dhamma. That should be a warning for all you naysayers. Keep in mind, the men compiling the Commentaries were not allowed to lie, and certainly would not make these things up for fear of extremely negative unwholesome kamma.

This is bull**** on top of more **** on top of blind faith. If I listened to everyone who told me I'd burn in hell for this or that I'd never get anything done. It's such an awful strategy I'm sincerely baffled that you'd even try it.

All religions, particularly once they enter a sectarian phase, do that sort of thing, but this is off-topic.

[Virgo]

There is a story in a Commentary that I heard (haven't read it first hand) of a monk under a past Buddha who rejected the Abhidhamma and told people that it was not the teaching of the Buddha. He burned in hell because of it, since abhidhamma is the epitome of dhamma. That should be a warning for all you naysayers. Keep in mind, the men compiling the Commentaries were not allowed to lie, and certainly would not make these things up for fear of extremely negative unwholesome kamma.

This is bull**** on top of more **** on top of blind faith. If I listened to everyone who told me I'd burn in hell for this or that I'd never get anything done. It's such an awful strategy I'm sincerely baffled that you'd even try it.

You just have a lot of aversion to the idea of hell.

[Kenshou]

What I'm really averse to, is the big nasty spider web of self-referential nonsense that things like your threat of hell are just the very tip of.

[Nyana]

There seems to be a major confusion from the very beginning.

Attthakatha is largely based on the old commentaries that have been accumulating from the times of the first Councils.

So it's important to clearly distinguish the Abhidhammika works, especially in their modern rendition, from the Commentaries, which very few people actually read, and so many talk about.

It would be even better to distinguish specific detailed strata of texts, according to their chronology. For example, Atthakatha and Tika are quite different in character.

Hi Dmytro,

Certainly one could draw out the doctrinal developments in the various strata of commentaries, sub-commentaries, etc. But even the main commentaries employ abhidhamma terminology and categorization schemes in their sutta analysis which aren’t found in the sutta-s themselves, and are therefore abhidhammabhājaniya – abhidhamma analysis applied to the sutta-s. (Even the so-called suttantabhājaniya of the Abhidhamma Vibhaṅga presupposes abhidhamma classifications, etc.)

The first description of mind-moments I know is given in Vimuttimagga (1st century CE). And the major Abhidhammika works are medieval.

There are a few short references to the theory of momentariness in the main commentaries. Spk ii 266:

• Hence the Ancients said: ‘Arising was called birth and dissolution referred to passing away. Change referred to aging and endurance to maintenance.’
  
  Thus each khandha has three characteristic marks called arising, aging and dissolution, of which it is said in the passage (A I 152): ‘These are, monks, the three conditioned characteristic marks of the conditioned [khandha].’
  
  Tenāhu porāṇā uppādo jāti akkhāto bhaṅgo vutto vayoti ca aññathattaṃ jarā vuttā ṭhitī ca anupālanā ti evaṃ ekekassa khandhassa uppādajarābhaṅgasaṅkhātāni tīṇi lakkhaṇānī ti.

And Mp ii 252:

• Origination is said to appear at the origination moments, aging at the subsistence moments and dissolution at the destruction moments.
  
  Uppādo ti jāti vayo ti bhedo ṭhitassa aññathattaṃ nāma jarā … uppādādayo saṅkhatalakkhaṇā nāma tesu uppādakkaṇe uppādo thānakkaṇe jarā bhedakkhaṇe vayo.

Also, Ācariya Ānanda (medieval period VbhAA.) cites the Abhidhamma Yamaka as canonical support for his understanding of radical momentariness. The Yamaka does use the terms arising moment (uppādakkhaṇa) and dissolution moment (bhaṅgakkhaṇa), even if these terms do not necessarily entail interpreting khaṇa as radical momentariness in the Yamaka itself.

All the best,

Geoff

[Nyana]

The question of why is the Abhidhamma so quickly dismissed by some is an interesting one. Often, it seems to me, ignorance is the answer.

Hi Mike, Tilt, & all,

To be sure, ignorance of the content and context of the Abidhamma Piṭaka is often the case. But not always. And it isn’t always quickly dismissed. Some people have spent years studying and contemplating the Abidhamma Piṭaka before arriving at any conclusions regarding its shortcomings.

If it can be argued that it's not the words of the Buddha (even if possibly derived from them) what makes their dismissal any different to the dismissal of the Mahayana Sutras? Why would the teachings of "our elders" be somehow inherently better than the teachings of "their elders"?

Our elders kept, for the most part, to a particular understanding of the Dhamma; the Mahayanists, ah, well, did something else.

No doubt, the abbhidhamma project was well-intentioned, but I would suggest that the entire enterprise was also ill-conceived. The very notion that all of the corners of samsaric cognition can be “squared” is to miss the point that samsaric consciousness is deluded from the get-go, and therefore can’t be unequivocally validated in terms of the individuation of empirical particulars (whether as things or event-processes). This very process is itself part of the problem, not the solution.

Moreover, attempts to account for liberated cognition in terms of the fabricated aggregates misses the point stated in many sutta-s that such cannot be done. For example, the mind liberated through discernment is designated as “measureless mind” (appamāṇacetasa) in a number of discourses (S iv 119, S iv 186, S iv 189, S iv 199, MN 38). Elsewhere it is designated as unestablished (appatiṭṭha), and featureless (anidassana), and one thus liberated is said to be independent (anissita), etc.

One of the most elegant and subtle aspects of the dhamma of the sutta portion of the Nikāya-s is that it doesn’t impose any sort of fabricated view regarding the nature of the liberated mind. This is clear in the sense of measureless mind → appamāṇacetasa, being free from any sort of measurement → pamāṇa.

Once all mental designations (pannatti; also saṅkhā, samannā, etc.) are done away with, there is no way (and no need) for defining liberation in any way at all. This is a “freedom of absence.” It is also non-proliferation (nippapanca: “Dhammo nippapancaratino, nāyaṃ dhammo papancārāmassa papancaratino.”), etc.

This is what distinguishes the exquisite dhamma of the sutta-s from everything that came before the Buddha or after the sutta corpus. It’s unfortunate that virtually all commentators – early abhidhamma, classical, and modern commentators – and all Buddhist doctrinal schools haven’t seen fit to follow the Buddha’s wisdom on these points.

All the best,

Geoff

[Virgo]

What I'm really averse to, is the big nasty spider web of self-referential nonsense that things like your threat of hell are just the very tip of.

Are you aware that being disrespectful to a Buddha can cause you to go to hell and that it carries more weight than being disrespectful to a putthujana? If so, it is the same here. If you talk bad about some literary work that is unwholesome kamma. But if you talk bad about a text that contains true dhamma that is much, much worse and carries heavier kamma. If the abhidhamma tells people the way things really are leading to the end of suffering and you purposefully turn people away from it, I am sorry but the kamma will be very weighty.

Best,

Kevin

[Kenshou]

The Abhidhamma is not really my core gripe, here.

And even if it were, I do not see any reason to accept the tenants upon which your statements are based, and so I don't particularly care what nasty kamma you think I'll be getting. No more meaningful than the Evangelical Christians who scream about damnation on the street corners.

[IanAnd]

What I'm really averse to, is the big nasty spider web of self-referential nonsense that things like your threat of hell are just the very tip of.

Are you aware that being disrespectful to a Buddha can cause you to go to hell and that it carries more weight than being disrespectful to a putthujana?

...But if you talk bad about a text that contains true dhamma that is much, much worse and carries heavier kamma.

If the abhidhamma tells people the way things really are leading to the end of suffering and you purposefully turn people away from it, I am sorry but the kamma will be very weighty.

This may be OFF TOPIC, and therefore may very well be ignored by serious readers of this thread. And I really wouldn't blame them for doing so. But considering that these posts have been allowed to stand, I have a question for the originator of the premise being promulgated here, that being Virgo. When you use the word (or label) "hell" of what, specifically, are you referring to? Are you speaking of a physical (or even fine material) place (in the same way that many in mainstream Christianity ignorantly speak of this when using the word "hell") or of a psychological state?

As well, considering how tangled some people's ideas of kamma are, as has been experienced in other recent threads here of late, what is the definition of kamma that you are using and referring to here? By this I mean, how do you personally conceive of what kamma is and how it affects people in a real life practical way?

Since these are, without a doubt, two very inflammatory concepts to be speaking about, it might be interesting and informative (for others here who are also interested of the subject matter of this back and forth) if you could tell us what they mean for you so that readers might be able to more easily relate to the urgency of your discourse as well as better understand exactly to what you are referring.

[Virgo]

The Abhidhamma is not really my core gripe, here.

And even if it were, I do not see any reason to accept the tenants upon which your statements are based, and so I don't particularly care what nasty kamma you think I'll be getting. No more meaningful than the Evangelical Christians who scream about damnation on the street corners.

The texts are clear that kamma (action) leads to result (vipakka). They are also clear that the degree of morality of the object influences how weighty the kamma might be. For example, giving food to an animal who create a wholesome result. Giving food to a human being who is immoral will create a much more bountiful wholesome result. Giving fruit to a human that holds the five precepts, one that is even more bountiful. Giving food to a sotapanna, extremely more bountiful and so on up the stages of Ariyanship. Giving the same peice of food to a Samasambuddha can give an incredible, incredible result. Likewise with unwholesome kamma. Therefore if one turns someone away from the true dhamma it can lead to a very unwholesome result. There are cases in the Canon of people who made extreme bad kamma for slight offenses towards Ariyans. Sadly these people suffered badly. In talking about doctrines, the worst one you can talk badly about is words of a Buddha.

[Virgo]

What I'm really averse to, is the big nasty spider web of self-referential nonsense that things like your threat of hell are just the very tip of.

Are you aware that being disrespectful to a Buddha can cause you to go to hell and that it carries more weight than being disrespectful to a putthujana?

...But if you talk bad about a text that contains true dhamma that is much, much worse and carries heavier kamma.

If the abhidhamma tells people the way things really are leading to the end of suffering and you purposefully turn people away from it, I am sorry but the kamma will be very weighty.

This may be OFF TOPIC, and therefore may very well be ignored by serious readers of this thread. And I really wouldn't blame them for doing so. But considering that these posts have been allowed to stand, I have a question for the originator of the premise being promulgated here, that being Virgo. When you use the word (or label) "hell" of what, specifically, are you referring to? Are you speaking of a physical (or even fine material) place (in the same way that many in mainstream Christianity ignorantly speak of this when using the word "hell") or of a psychological state?

As well, considering how tangled some people's ideas of kamma are, as has been experienced in other recent threads here of late, what is the definition of kamma that you are using and referring to here? By this I mean, how do you personally conceive of what kamma is and how it affects people in a real life practical way?

Since these are, without a doubt, two very inflammatory concepts to be speaking about, it might be interesting and informative (for others here who are also interested of the subject matter of this back and forth) if you could tell us what they mean for you so that readers might be able to more easily relate to the urgency of your discourse as well as better understand exactly to what you are referring.

Hi IanAnd. That would be the traditional Theravada interpretation of hell and the same for the interpretation of kamma.

Be well,

Kevin

[IanAnd]

When you use the word (or label) "hell" of what, specifically, are you referring to? Are you speaking of a physical (or even fine material) place (in the same way that many in mainstream Christianity ignorantly speak of this when using the word "hell") or of a psychological state?

As well, considering how tangled some people's ideas of kamma are, as has been experienced in other recent threads here of late, what is the definition of kamma that you are using and referring to here? By this I mean, how do you personally conceive of what kamma is and how it affects people in a real life practical way?

Since these are, without a doubt, two very inflammatory concepts to be speaking about, it might be interesting and informative (for others here who are also interested of the subject matter of this back and forth) if you could tell us what they mean for you so that readers might be able to more easily relate to the urgency of your discourse as well as better understand exactly to what you are referring.

Hi IanAnd. That would be the traditional Theravada interpretation of hell and the same for the interpretation of kamma.

So, what does that mean to you? Please explain.

What is the "traditional interpretation of hell and kamma" for you? What interpretation(s) do you accept as being traditional?

I don't mean you any harm. Just curious, that's all. It's okay with me whatever view you have. I just wanted some clarification for other readers, that's all.

[Virgo]

So, what does that mean to you? Please explain.

What is the "traditional interpretation of hell and kamma" for you? What interpretation(s) do you accept as being traditional?

I don't mean you any harm. Just curious, that's all. It's okay with me whatever view you have. I just wanted some clarification for other readers, that's all.

Hi Iand. Well, kamma is volition, intention. It leads to a result that can occur when the conditions are right. This may be at any time. There are many factors, not every occurs due to kamma, but it is one of the main conditions that conditions things.

Hell is a place no one wants to go ever.

I hope this helps.

Be well,

Kevin