[giDdfezP]

Greetings Jechbi,

There are many bhikkhus in the Theravada lineage, who accept that the Buddha did not teach the Abhidhamma Pitaka, and rightly regard it on that basis (refer to the Four Great References in the Mahaparinibbana mentioned by Stuka earlier).

If you maintain that Stuka's quote "...does not reflect Theravada perspective" then logically you must conclude that Ajahn Chah, Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, Bhikkhu Bodhi, Venerable Nanananda, Ajahn Sumedho and many other well known and well regarded bhikkhus "do not reflect Theravada perspective", when they admit too that the Buddha did not teach Abhidhamma, thereby placing themselves outside the dominion of this "Theravada perspective" that you presume to be representing here.

In order to demonstrate that you are not attempting to drive a wedge between those who follow the teachings of the Buddha and the Theravada tradition, it would be beneficial if you could elaborate further (as per Stuka's requests above) in order to shed some light on the nature of the intended discussion.

Your opinion regarding what Theravada is and is not, seems more closely aligned to that of the Sri Lankan Mahavihara sect which arose centuries after the Buddha's parinibbana, than the broader Theravada lineage itself. Yet, even Bhikkhu Bodhi who studied with Mahaviharins in Sri Lanka says that, "I take as the sole ultimate authority for interpretation of the Dhamma the Buddha's discourses as found in the four main Nikaayas and in the older strata of the Khuddaka Nikaaya." and "I also believe that the Commentaries (e.g. Mahavihara scholarship) take unnecessary risks when they try to read back into the Suttas ideas deriving from tools of interpretation (e.g. Abhidhamma) that appeared perhaps centuries after the Suttas were compiled." (both quotes sourced from Bhikkhu Bodhi's "A Critical Examination of Nanavira Thera's 'A Note On Paticcasamuppada".)

It's the Mahaviharins who invented the story about the Buddha teaching Abhidhamma to his mother in Tusita Heaven and then re-teaching it to Sariputta back on Earth. This kind of self-serving justification story has been used by many Buddhist traditions over the years (e.g. the Mahayana "Naga realms" story, the Zen story of Maha-Kassapa silently holding a lotus to teach the Dharma, Vajrayana stories about the Buddha teaching Tantra to those who were in the know) in an attempt to legitimize their own original creations by falsely tracing them back to the Buddha and members of the early Sangha. Interestingly, such a story is not to be found in the Tipitaka itself. In fact, the Abhidhamma Pitaka did not even come to be until the Third Buddhist Council, so why should anyone be obliged to regard it, let alone subsequent commentarial Abhidhamma literature as legitimate in accordance with the Four Great References? The fact some sects have failed to fulfill their 'duty' with regards to the Four Great References does not give them the mandate to insist that others must "respect" their own non-Buddhavacana deviations.

Metta,
Retro.