The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

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

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by pt1 »

TheDhamma wrote: 1. Discourses
2. Teachings in verse
3. Predictions
4. Summaries in verse
5. Dependent Origination
6. Instructions by simile
7. Quotations
8. Inspired sayings
9. Stories of previous births

None of the above appear to refer to the Abhidhamma. There are clear examples for the Suttas, Theragatha & Therigatha, even Jataka, but apparently not Abhidhamma.
Yeah, that's true if you don't believe the atthasalini quote that one of those nine divisions - veyyakarana in Pali - was in fact what we now call abhidhamma. I wonder if there are any other Pali sources that can confirm the veyyakarana thing.
TheDhamma wrote: By process of elimination, the best possible argument that the Abhidhamma may have been recited at the First Council would come from your no. 2 above. If it could be shown that Abhidhamma was considered a part of the Khuddaka Nikaya at that time, then the statement that the five Nikayas were recited could include the Abhidhamma.
Yeah, again, the problem is how to show that? I mean, the atthasalini quote says so explicitly that abhidhamma is classified as khudaka nikaya, but if one discards atthasalini, then are there any other ancient Pali sources that say so? At the moment, I'm not familiar with any.
TheDhamma wrote: I think some of the early schools did consider the Abhidhamma part of the Khuddaka Nikaya, but not the Theravada. Also, I think the commentaries claim that it was not Ananda, but another monk who recited the Abhidhamma.
Hmm, not sure about this, if you come accross a source for it, please let us know.

Best wishes
pt1
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:30 am

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by pt1 »

Paññāsikhara wrote:This discussion could benefit an enormous amount by getting out of the "Pali only" fixation and referring more Sanskrit, Chinese and even Tibetan materials. A quite check to see if a passage also appears or not in other versions of the Vinaya or Sutras, for instance, is powerful evidence as to its originality or not.
Hi pannasikhara, it'd be great if you can share your knowledge with us on this topic, as you seem to know a lot more about it than most of us (more than me for sure). The only thing I can offer in that regard is a quote from an article on buddhanet I stumbled upon:
On the third pitaka (Abhidhamma) which should make up the Tipitaka ('Three Pitakas') there is disagreement. The Sthaviravada and Mahasamghika versions do not mention its recitation, and since the agreement of these two schools should establish the oldest available textual tradition it appears that originally there were only two Pitakas. However, even the Mahasamghika account mentions the Abhidhamma as among the texts handed down after the rehearsal. The Mahisasaka version makes no mention of a third Pitaka.The Sarvastivada and Dharmaguptaka Vinayas on the other hand have Ananda reciting the Abhidhamma as well as the Sutra. The Kasyapiya (=Haimavata) mentions the Abhidhamma Pitaka without saying who recited it. A later text of the Sarvastivada School, the Asokavadana states that Kasyapa recited the Matrka or Matrka Pitaka (two versions of the text). The same tradition is found in the Vinaya of the Mula Sarvastivada School, a late offshoot of the Sarvastivada which thoroughly revised and enlarged its Tipitaka. 'Whether a Matrka or Abhidhamma was actually recited at the First Rehearsal or not, all the early schools were equipped with a third, Abhidhamma Pitaka.
Best wishes
pt1
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:30 am

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by pt1 »

BudSas wrote:
pt1 wrote:
Afaik, the classical position regarding abhidhamma pitaka goes like this (someone please correct me if I’m wrong):
1. Buddha preached abhidhamma in Tavatimsa.
2. Then he gave the summaries (matikas) of his Tavatimsa sermons to Sariputta.
3. Sariputta then organized and fleshed out these matikas into their current form and thought it to his disciples – what he thought to his disciples is pretty much what abhidhamma pitaka is today (except for the katthavathu).
...
That explanation was taken from the Commentaries (Atthasalini). If one accepts this explanation, then 6 out of 7 volumes of the Abidhamma Pitaka should be seen as the words of Ven Sariputta, not the Buddha's words. Similarly, the Kathavatthu of the Abidhamma Pitaka should be seen as the words of Ven Moggaliputta Tissa recorded in the 3rd century BCE (King Asoka's period).
Hi, yeah, that's a possible interpretation. My understanding so far is that the Buddha is considered the 'origin' of abhidhamma, because abdhidhamma is the provenance of the buddhas (I think the word used was "provenance" - I forget what word exactly was used in Atthasalini) and that it's considered the word of the Buddha because Sariputta got the abhidhamma matikas (I've seen this called "summaries", aslo "the method") from the Buddha.

So, my understandning is that Sariputta couldn't have come up with abhdhamma on his own, even though he was the foremost disciple in insight, and therefore abdhidhamma isn't the word of Sariputta in the same way that Majjhima Nikaya isn't the word of Bhikkhu Bodhi for example (even though he did a great work of transmitting the majjhima nikaya teachings to English-speaking people through his translation, his lectures on every sutta in it, his Pali lectures, etc). But that's just how I see it at the moment.

Best wishes
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 1938
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by BlackBird »

Chris wrote:Hello all,

...[snip]...

THE FIRST BUDDHIST COUNCIL
Because the teachings had not been written down at the time of Buddha,
whatever he taught was learned by heart and memorized by his disciples.
It is believed that the Buddha gave 84,000 units of teachings during his
lifetime. Just after the death of the Buddha in 544 B.C., his
disciples, headed by the Elder Mahakasapa, decided to hold a council to
collect his teachings and record them by word of mouth. This was done a
little more than three months after the death of the Buddha, at the
Sattapanni Cave near Rajgiri, the capital of Magadha (now the Indian
state of Bihar). Five hundred arahants ("fully enlightened beings") met
to hold this council
. The Elder Mahakassapa presided over this council
and acted as the "questioner" and the Elder Upali and the Elder Ananda
acted as the "answerers" for the Vinaya ( displinary rules for monks,
nuns and novices) and the Dhamma( suttas or sermons and Abhidhamma)
respectively.
The teachings of the Buddha were minutely scrutinized as
to where, when, on what occasion, to which person or persons they were
taught, and many other points as well.. When all present were satisfied
with the authenticiry of a discourse to be the exact teaching of the
Buddha, all recited it to show their acceptance. By reciting the
discourse in unison, they gave their approval
. It took seven months to
bring this Council to conclusion. These teachings, accepted and recited
in unison at the First Buddhist Council, were handed down from teacher
to pupil by word of mouth to future generations.

At this council, the assembled arahants not only collected and
scrutinized the teachings, but also classified them and grouped them
into different divisions


...[snip]...

metta

Chris
:goodpost:
Thank you Chris.

Arahants compiled the Tipitaka. I don't know about everyone else - But I am a mere worldling, and I'm happy to put my faith in a Noble One, how much more so 500.

Metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
pt1
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:30 am

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by pt1 »

Thanks Chris. It's really interesting that the author places both the Nikaya and Pitaka classifications at the time of the first council. It'd be great if we could find out what were the sources the author used to come to this conclusion.

Best wishes
Chris wrote: ...
At this council, the assembled arahants not only collected and
scrutinized the teachings, but also classified them and grouped them
into different divisions
. The most well known division is that into
what we call Pitakas ('baskets" or "learnings"), namely, the Vinaya
Pitaka, the Sutta ( or Suttanta) Pitaka and the Abhidhamma Pitaka. The
Vinaya Pitaka ( which deals with the rules and disciplines for monks,
nuns and novices) is the Book of Law for monks, nuns and novices. The
second Pitaka consists of discourses given by the Buddha on different
occasions. This Pitaka is the most popular among monks and lay people
alike. The third Pitaka, the Abhidfhamma,deals with the ultimate
truths: consciousness, mental factors and so on.
Another classification is into Nikaya or "Collections." They are Digha
Nikaya, Collection of Long Discoursses; Mjjhima Nikaya, the Collection
of Medium Length Discourses; Samyutta Nikaya, The Collection of Kindred
Discourses; Anguttara Nikaya, the Collection of Discourses with the
number of units increasing gradually, and Khuddaka Nikaya, the
Collection of Minor Discourses. Among them the first four Nikayas
belong to the Sutta Pitaka, whereas the last Nikaya comprises Vinaya and
Abhidhamma Pitakas, and other discourses that are not included in the
first four Nikayas.
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by Paññāsikhara »

pt1 wrote:
Paññāsikhara wrote:This discussion could benefit an enormous amount by getting out of the "Pali only" fixation and referring more Sanskrit, Chinese and even Tibetan materials. A quite check to see if a passage also appears or not in other versions of the Vinaya or Sutras, for instance, is powerful evidence as to its originality or not.
Hi pannasikhara, it'd be great if you can share your knowledge with us on this topic, as you seem to know a lot more about it than most of us (more than me for sure). The only thing I can offer in that regard is a quote from an article on buddhanet I stumbled upon:
On the third pitaka (Abhidhamma) which should make up the Tipitaka ('Three Pitakas') there is disagreement. The Sthaviravada and Mahasamghika versions do not mention its recitation, and since the agreement of these two schools should establish the oldest available textual tradition it appears that originally there were only two Pitakas.
I wonder what they mean by "Sthaviravada" here? Because, below, we see that some Sthavira schools did make such a claim.

However, this is the basic principle I mentioned above - where early Sthavira and Mahasamghika schools have commonalities, these can generally be regarded as pre-schism teachings. And thus, probably representative of what the Bhagavan himself taught. Of course, specific case examples will have specific circumstances, this is the basic principle, though.

I would generally aruge that "originally there were no Pitakas", because it appears that the term Pitaka may have been a slightly later usage. It seemed to come about the same time as the nine-limbs (navanga) classification system, and then the twelve-limb.

Just another note at this point, too, because a few arguments have been made about which of the nine (or twelve) limbs corresponds to the Abhidhamma. Firstly, "sutta" in the nine / twelve does NOT exactly correspond to "sutta" in "sutta-pitaka". The latter is broader in meaning. We can get back to the nine / twelve limbs in a moment, but for now, it is perhaps more useful to point out the twelve limb system is going to be more helpful than the nine limb system, because the relationship between vedalla and upadesa to the abhidhamma is much stronger.

Also, just because some Vinaya mention the recitation of the sutta [pitaka] in the First Council, best not to assume that this includes the KN (and then try to argue that the Abhidhamma was part of KN, therefore recited at the first council). This is because a comparison amongst schools quickly shows that the KN is really just a Theravada thing, and not shared by other schools. They either put its contents in other Agamas, or even in whole other Pitaka (eg. Jataka / Apadana in the Dharmagupta Bodhisatta-pitaka).
However, even the Mahasamghika account mentions the Abhidhamma as among the texts handed down after the rehearsal.
This comment from the (or rather "a") Mahasamghika is in a commentary to the Mahasamghika commentary to the Ekottara-agama (~ AN). This is an early Chinese translation, and is only partial (part of the eka-vagga, not the whole text). Possibly, this was only composed in maybe the 1st or 2nd cty CE. So, pretty late, and not that reliable a source. (Primitive translation too, not easy to read.) This group of Mahasamghika may have been lately influenced by other Sthavira schools in that area (~ Kasmir / Pamirs), such as the Dhammaguptas.
The Mahisasaka version makes no mention of a third Pitaka.
Correct. Remember, the Mahisasakas are also Sthaviravada.
The Sarvastivada and Dharmaguptaka Vinayas on the other hand have Ananda reciting the Abhidhamma as well as the Sutra.
Correct.

However, to add, the Dharmagupta description of what that Abhidharma contains matches up with the text known as the Sariputra Abhidharma Sastra (and thus not a Theravadin text). The Sariputra Abhidharma Sastra structurally is very, very close to the Theravada Vibhanga (and a bit of the Dhammasangani) and also the Sarvastivada Dharmaskandhapada Sastra. But, here, the Dharmagupta is most likely pointing to the Sariputra Abhidharma Sastra.

And, the Sarvastivada vinaya description of the Abhidharma supposedly recited at the first council matches their own Dharmaskandhapada Sastra, and definitely not any Theravadin text.

Again, both the Dharmagupta and Sarvastivada are Sthaviravada.
The Kasyapiya (=Haimavata) mentions the Abhidhamma Pitaka without saying who recited it.
Again, their description seems to match the Sariputra Abhidharma Sastra, and - yes, you guessed it - not any Theravada text. The Kasyapiyas (who maybe but maybe not are the Haimavata) are also Sthaviravada.
A later text of the Sarvastivada School, the Asokavadana states that Kasyapa recited the Matrka or Matrka Pitaka (two versions of the text). The same tradition is found in the Vinaya of the Mula Sarvastivada School, a late offshoot of the Sarvastivada which thoroughly revised and enlarged its Tipitaka.
Note "later text" and the Mula-sarvastivada is also a later school. By this time, the Sarvastivada (like the Theravada) were already so convinced that the Abhidharma was taught by the Buddha and recited at the first council, that this story was already embedded deeply into their own tradition.

I'd also like to add that the Vatsiputriyas had several Abhidhammic texts, such as the Lokapannatti Sastra, and the Tikkhandhaka. They may have also used the Sariputra Abhidharma Sastra, too.
'Whether a Matrka or Abhidhamma was actually recited at the First Rehearsal or not, all the early schools were equipped with a third, Abhidhamma Pitaka.
Really? The above only indicates that (most) Sthaviravada stated this, along with a (rather dodgy) Mahasamghika commentary.

The arguments about whether or not the Mahasamghika actually had an Abhidharma Pitaka are interesting. The canonical material has the Mahasamghika state explicitly that "abhidharma is the 'nine-fold' sutras", which is the navanga-sutta. Note, this is "is" and not "part of". To them, abhidharma is just "about (abhi) the dharma", a lot like dhammakatha. They also had a text known as the Petaka or Karanda, and there may be some relation to this Petaka and the Petakopadesa. People like Walser try to argue that the Mahasamghika did have an Abhidharma Pitaka, but I think that his arguments are pretty bad. I won't go into the details here, but if you want to know, I can list them and why they are incorrect.

So, actually, what do we have?

We have a couple of Sthaviravada schools say that there was an Abhidharma early on. Namely: Vatsiputriya, Theravada, Sarvastivada, Dharmagupta and Kasyapiya. This is also kind of the order in which they split off from the original schism Sthaviras. And, the Theravada, Sarvastivada and Dharmagupta all have commonalities around the Sariputra Abhidharma Sastra, but the Theravada then has their corresponding Vibhanga (and Dhammasangani) and the Sarvastivadins their Dharmaskandhapada Sastra.

But, the remainder six Abhidhamma texts of the Theravada and the six of the Sarvastivada are quite different. The later in time, the more they differ.

One very good argument to explain all this is: Between the first schism (second council) and the time of Asoka (third council), there was a large group of Sthaviras around the area from Mathura - Avanti, east of the old heart of the dispensation, and slightly south too. While they were here, they developed possibly a couple of forms of "abhidharma", which are "about the dharma", and basically forms that were very similar to the Vedallas, and Vibhanga suttas, and also the newer Upadesas. These actual suttas were taught by people like Sariputra, Mahakatyayana, Ananda, etc.

Now, during Asoka's time, when the various groups spread out across India, these Sthavira groups took the proto-type Sariputra Abhidharma with them. Because the Theravada ended up so far away, and likewise the Sarvastivada in Kasmir, they developed rather independently, and bear less similarity over time. In central India, the groups like the Vatsiputriyas and Dharmaguptas maintained more commonality, hence their Sariputra Abhidharma Sastra was used by a couple of schools.

The Mahasamghikas never had this in the first place, and used an earlier sutta meaning for "abhidhamma", which is like "dhammakatha", "about the dhamma". Probably later, when the Sthavira schools Abhidharmas were so powerful in explaining their whole doctrinal positions, they also developed similar texts, but this is really another type of literature.

Anyway, that's my take on it.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by Paññāsikhara »

If people want the actual sources for the above statements, please let me know.
Hope you can read Chinese, though.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
Brizzy

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by Brizzy »

Chris wrote: THE FIRST BUDDHIST COUNCIL
Because the teachings had not been written down at the time of Buddha,
whatever he taught was learned by heart and memorized by his disciples.
It is believed that the Buddha gave 84,000 units of teachings during his
lifetime. Just after the death of the Buddha in 544 B.C., his
disciples, headed by the Elder Mahakasapa, decided to hold a council to
collect his teachings and record them by word of mouth. This was done a
little more than three months after the death of the Buddha, at the
Sattapanni Cave near Rajgiri, the capital of Magadha (now the Indian
state of Bihar). Five hundred arahants ("fully enlightened beings") met
to hold this council
. The Elder Mahakassapa presided over this council
and acted as the "questioner" and the Elder Upali and the Elder Ananda
acted as the "answerers" for the Vinaya ( displinary rules for monks,
nuns and novices) and the Dhamma( suttas or sermons and Abhidhamma)
respectively.
The teachings of the Buddha were minutely scrutinized as
to where, when, on what occasion, to which person or persons they were
taught, and many other points as well.. When all present were satisfied
with the authenticiry of a discourse to be the exact teaching of the
Buddha, all recited it to show their acceptance. By reciting the
discourse in unison, they gave their approval
. It took seven months to
bring this Council to conclusion. These teachings, accepted and recited
in unison at the First Buddhist Council, were handed down from teacher
to pupil by word of mouth to future generations.

At this council, the assembled arahants not only collected and
scrutinized the teachings, but also classified them and grouped them
into different divisions
. The most well known division is that into
what we call Pitakas ('baskets" or "learnings"), namely, the Vinaya
Pitaka, the Sutta ( or Suttanta) Pitaka and the Abhidhamma Pitaka. The
Vinaya Pitaka ( which deals with the rules and disciplines for monks,
nuns and novices) is the Book of Law for monks, nuns and novices. The
second Pitaka consists of discourses given by the Buddha on different
occasions. This Pitaka is the most popular among monks and lay people
alike. The third Pitaka, the Abhidfhamma,deals with the ultimate
truths: consciousness, mental factors and so on.
Another classification is into Nikaya or "Collections." They are Digha
Nikaya, Collection of Long Discoursses; Mjjhima Nikaya, the Collection
of Medium Length Discourses; Samyutta Nikaya, The Collection of Kindred
Discourses; Anguttara Nikaya, the Collection of Discourses with the
number of units increasing gradually, and Khuddaka Nikaya, the
Collection of Minor Discourses. Among them the first four Nikayas
belong to the Sutta Pitaka, whereas the last Nikaya comprises Vinaya and
Abhidhamma Pitakas, and other discourses that are not included in the
first four Nikayas.
Hi Chris

With respect the Buddha called his religion Dhamma/Vinaya. The Abhidhamma is widely viewed as a later addition, with every school having there own. The suttas and vinaya are generally consistent across schools, unlike Abhidhamma which varies from school to school. The Abhidhamma, could not have been recited by Ananda at the first council, it did not exist! There were originally only two baskets of teachings, the Vinaya & Suttas. The fairy tale that was introduced to give authenticity to the Abhidhamma, would make Hans christien Anderson blush :smile:
The Buddha never told people to look for verification in the "Abhidhamma" he said to look for verification in the Dhamma/Vinaya.
The Buddha often stated that he was not a teacher with a closed fist, his teachings, he gave freely with no secrets. It is not surprising that every school would add on its own ideas & views, but it should not do this by putting words into the Buddhas (or sariputtas) mouth.

"The first council (Rjagaha) mentions only Dhamma,vinaya, without mention any Abhidhamma (Cv 11 = V2:284-293). According to Frauwallner, the Abhidhamma was probably composed between 200 BCE and 200 CE(Abhidharma-Studien IV. Der Abhidharma der anderen Schulen, WZKS 15, 1971b:106). Furthermore, the earlyBuddhist sects, each had their own Abhidharma Piaka, often at variance with one another. See Hinüber, A Hand-book of Pali Literature, 1996: II.3. See also Dhamma and Abhidhamma = SD 26.1."http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:y7 ... clnk&gl=au
That is not to say everything in the abhidhamma is wrong, but it must be viewed in the light of it not being the Buddhas direct teaching.

BTW I am not averse to believing in the many miracles that the Buddha and his disciples performed. However the story of how the Abhidhamma came into being, just does'nt ring true. It sounds more like the Mahayana & Vajrayana stories that are used to give authenticity to there teachings.

:smile:
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 13415
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 »

Brizzy wrote: According to Frauwallner, the Abhidhamma was probably composed between 200 BCE and 200 CE(Abhidharma-Studien IV. Der Abhidharma der anderen Schulen, WZKS 15, 1971b:106).
200 CE appears to be an exaggeration. The Abhidhamma was recited at the Third Council in approx. 250 BCE and written down on the palm leaves with the Suttas and Vinaya in approx. 100 BCE.

The question and debate remains open, however, as to whether it was recited or compiled before the Third Council.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 23191
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings sir,
Paññāsikhara wrote:Personally, I take questions like the "authenticity" or otherwise of a body of literature like the Abhidhamma extremely seriously. As such, it is absolutely vital to take all the possible relevant material into account. Otherwise, with extreme source bias of only examining on body of literature, or only taking information from one Nikayan school, rather than taking all the literature and information from all the schools, of course major errors in our conclusions will result. That would indeed be a shame, don't you think?
Yes... yes it would.

Well said.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

"Overcome the liar by truth." (Dhp 223)
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 17855
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Brizzy,
Brizzy wrote:The fairy tale that was introduced to give authenticity to the Abhidhamma, would make Hans christien Anderson blush...
Do you consider all of the Sutta/Vinaya to be accurate, or do you consider some of that to be "fairy tale" as well? How do you distinguish what in the Canonical Tipitika and Commentary to take as true and which parts were made up?

According to the Suttas the Buddha descended from the Tusita Heaven, the same place he taught Abhidhamma accoding to the Commentaries:
MN 123 The Discourse On Wonderful Things (not the best translation...)
http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2S ... tta-e.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
`Venerable sir I have heard these words from the Blessed One himself and you acknowledged them. "Ānanda, the one aspiring enlightenment abode with the gods of happiness, with mindful awareness. " Venerable sir, this I bear as something wonderful and surprising of the Blessed One

“Venerable sir I have heard these words from the Blessed One himself and you acknowledged them. "Ānanda, the one aspiring enlightenment abode with the gods of happiness, until the end of that life span. " Venerable sir, this I bear as something wonderful and surprising of the Blessed One

“Venerable sir I have heard these words from the Blessed One himself and you acknowledged them. "Ānanda, the one aspiring enlightenment, disappeared fromthe gods of happiness, and descended into the mother's womb with mindful awareness. " Venerable sir, this I bear as something wonderful and surprising of the Blessed One

“Venerable sir I have heard these words from the Blessed One himself and you acknowledged them. "Ānanda, when the one aspiring enlightenment, disappeared fromthe gods of happiness, and descended into the mother's womb, in the world of gods and men, Māras, Brahmās, recluses and brahmins there arose an immeasurable effulgence transcending the splendour of the gods. Even the dark uncoveredrecesses between the world systems where the resplendent moon and sun do not shine there arose an immeasurable effulgence transcending the splendour of the gods. Beings born there saw each other on account of that effulgence and knew that there were other beings born there. The ten thousandfold world system shivered and trembled on account of that immeasurable effulgence transccending the splendour of the gods" Venerable sir, this I bear as something wonderful and surprising of the Blessed One.
Metta
Mike
BudSas
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:12 am

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by BudSas »

TheDhamma wrote:
Brizzy wrote: According to Frauwallner, the Abhidhamma was probably composed between 200 BCE and 200 CE(Abhidharma-Studien IV. Der Abhidharma der anderen Schulen, WZKS 15, 1971b:106).
200 CE appears to be an exaggeration. The Abhidhamma was recited at the Third Council in approx. 250 BCE and written down on the palm leaves with the Suttas and Vinaya in approx. 100 BCE.

The question and debate remains open, however, as to whether it was recited or compiled before the Third Council.
Perhaps Frauwallner and some other Buddhist scholars (I can't remember names) believed that the Abhidhamma Pitaka was not closed at the Third Council (Asoka's time), but new material might still be added to it long after. According to those scholars, the Abhidhamma version we have today was closed anf fixed only before the Commentaries were written/compiled by Ven Buddhaghosa.

The question and debate on the "authenticity" of the Abhidhamma Pitaka continue to exist in may Buddhist forums & circles, and IMHO, we can never have any conclusive answer.

BDS
BudSas
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:12 am

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by BudSas »

Paññāsikhara wrote:If people want the actual sources for the above statements, please let me know.
Hope you can read Chinese, though.
Yes, please. Although I can't read classical Chinese of the Taisho, it's useful to have the references, so that one day, I could get help from my Chinese scholar friends.

I wish one day, the Abhidhamma Collection in the Taisho could be translated into modern languages (English, German, French, ...) so that we could study and compare with the Pali Abhidhamma.

BDS
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by Paññāsikhara »

BudSas wrote:
Paññāsikhara wrote:If people want the actual sources for the above statements, please let me know. Hope you can read Chinese, though.

Yes, please. Although I can't read classical Chinese of the Taisho, it's useful to have the references, so that one day, I could get help from my Chinese scholar friends.


Here they are (cf. Yinshun 印順 Research into the Śāstras and Pandits of the Mainly Sarvāstivāda Tradition 說一切有部為主的論書與論師之研究, 1971, pp. 8-12):

Ⅰ Mahāsāṃghika
Ekottarāgama, T2, 550c
『增一阿含經』卷一(大正二‧五五0下)。
*Guṅavibhaṇga Śāstra, T2, 32a
『分別功德論』卷一(大正二五‧三二上)。
Records from the Tripiṭaka and Kṣudraka Nikāya, T49, 3c
『撰集三藏及雜藏傳』(大正四九‧三下)。

Ⅱ Theravāda:
Samantapasādikā Vinaya Vibhāsa, T24, 676a
『善見律毘婆沙』卷一(大正二四‧六七六上)。

Ⅲ Mahīśāsaka
No reference.

Ⅳ Dharmaguptaka
Four Section Vinaya, T22, 968b
『四分律』卷五四(大正二二‧九六八中)。

Ⅴ Kaśyapīya / Haimavata
Vinayamātṛka Sūtra, T24, 818a
『毘尼母經』卷三(大正二四‧八一八上)。

Ⅵ Sarvāstivāda
Ten Recitation Vinaya, T23, 449a
『十誦律』卷六0(大正二三‧四四九上)。
Mahāprajñāpāramitā Upadeśa, T25, 69c
『大智度論』卷二(大正二五‧六九下)。

Ⅶ Mūlasarvāstivāda
Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya-kṣudraka-vastu, 24, 408b
『根本說一切有部毘奈耶雜事』卷四0(大正二四‧四0八中)。
Aśoka Avadāna, T50, 113c, 152a
『阿育王傳』卷四(大正五0‧一一三下)。卷六(大正五0‧一五二上)。

Ⅷ Some unnamed Vibhajyavāda Nikāya (NB: Vibhajyavāda is not exclusively Theravāda)
Texts on the Forest of Meanings in the Dharma Garden of the Mahāyāna, T45, 270b
『大乘法苑義林章』卷二引文(大正四五‧二七0中)。
I wish one day, the Abhidhamma Collection in the Taisho could be translated into modern languages (English, German, French, ...) so that we could study and compare with the Pali Abhidhamma. BDS
Here! Here! But it won't be for at least a few decades yet, from what I can see.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
BudSas
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:12 am

Re: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate

Post by BudSas »

Paññāsikhara wrote:
Here they are (cf. Yinshun 印順 Research into the Śāstras and Pandits of the Mainly Sarvāstivāda Tradition 說一切有部為主的論書與論師之研究, 1971, pp. 8-12):
.....
Thanks. Much appreciated.
I wish one day, the Abhidhamma Collection in the Taisho could be translated into modern languages (English, German, French, ...) so that we could study and compare with the Pali Abhidhamma. BDS
Here! Here! But it won't be for at least a few decades yet, from what I can see.
One never knows! It may happen sooner, especially with the young crops of monks/nuns/scholars from China (Hongkong, Taiwan), Korea, Japan who are well versed in both classical Chinese & English ...

BDS
Post Reply