[squeerisott]

I'm not entirely certain just how much the abhidhamma is used by those who frequent these boards, but since hearing that the abhidhamma is one of three baskets of teachings is commonplace, I thought it might be interesting to analyze the following comment, which comes at the end of an article by Bhante Sujato:

"I suggest that the abhidhamma is most profitably considered, not as a psychology or as a philosophy, but as a mystical cult. Its complexity arises, not from the inherent difficulty of the subject matter, but from the need to create an impression of unimpeachable authority. Its specialists, the abhidhammikas, are the High Priests of Buddhism. They play, aloof in their lofty Castle of Thought, the ultimate Glass Bead Game. Their role is not to realize the Dhamma, but to mediate between the devotees and the Plane of Ultimate Reality. The sabhāva of the abhidhamma is its soul, the moment its eternity. Its texts are magical incantations. Abhidhamma passages are, in fact, used virtually solely for this purpose in contemporary Thailand, recited at funeral rituals by monks who don’t know their meaning for laypeople who don’t care."

This is important because a great number of "Buddhist" ideas come from the abhidhamma and the commentarial tradition surrounding it: the doctrine of momentariness; the analysis of experience into fundamental things; the division between an ultimate truth and a conventional truth; and so on. Even an understanding of paticcasamuppada changes, when the commentarial tradition and the abhidhamma upon which it is based is set aside.

Perhaps no one is interested in the abhidhamma; if so, I recommend continuing to be disinterested therein! But it may well be that some of what we understand as "the Dhamma" could beneficially be challenged, if we but note which aspects have their roots in this late literature, and which have their roots in the Suttas.

[retrahdggd]

Personally, I would treat Sujato's "pot calling" with a grain of salt

We can read essays by Sujato such as Rebirth and the Inbetween State which simply display another sectarian

The interpretation of the Four Noble Truths and other suttas is certainly dubious in this essay

Such an interpretration essentially conform the Commentary Tradition

What all traditions share in common, including Sujato, is they are interpretations of the suttas

I can only suggest that Bhante Sujato, with his attempt at establishing a "historical scholarly dogma", is setting a bad example for those with an attraction to scholarship

Much of this "historical" scholarship is arguable just speculative theory

Bhante Sujato is a disciple of Ajahn Brahm, whose published teachings on Dependent Origination are not in accord with reality

Ajahn Brahm uses DN 15 as his primary source but DN 15 contradicts the scores of other suttas on the subject

Ajahn Brahm also seems to contradict Ajahn Chah's teachings on Dependent Origination, so which is right?

The division between an ultimate truth and a conventional truth exists in the suttas

The Buddha taught the doctrine of momentariness

With real metta

[TimEricsson]

But it may well be that some of what we understand as "the Dhamma" could beneficially be challenged

hi Dave

your point above is irrelevent

Dhamma is something to be realised

Realisation cannot be challenged

Please take care



There are here, O monks, some foolish men who study the Teaching; having studied it, they do not wisely examine the purpose of those teachings. To those who do not wisely examine the purpose, these teachings will not yield insight. They study the Teaching only to use it for criticizing or for refuting others in disputation. They do not experience the (true) purpose for which they (ought to) study the Teaching. To them these teachings wrongly grasped, will bring harm and suffering for a long time. And why? Because of their wrong grasp of the teachings.

Alagaddupama Sutta: The Snake Simile

[Ternneowns]

The division between an ultimate truth and a conventional truth exists in the suttas

The Buddha taught the doctrine of momentariness

Have you any Suttas on these matters?

[jgztw2es]

Have you any Suttas on these matters?

hi Dave

I have but if I quoted them, the Snake of MN 22 may rear its ugly & dangerous head

I can only suggest we try to examine these concepts with our own investigation (vimamsa; dhamma vicaya) and insight (vipassana)

This Buddha did not encourage blind faith in anyone, including himself

Kind regards

Element

[casinobonusese]

I'd be interested in reading a sensible debate about abhidhamma, especially as its been mentioned here in the past.

Here's one example:

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...Visuddhi-Magga

[zlopikanikanzax]

I'd be interested in reading a sensible debate about abhidhamma...

most of us have not read the abhidhamma so how could we engage in any kind of debate about it?

[meridiasas]

most of us have not read the abhidhamma so how could we engage in any kind of debate about it?

It's possible somebody has.

I thought you'd read bits of it yourself ?

[DoctorIrokezov]

never seen any abhidhamma

[JJoon077]

Doesn't Buddhaghosa refer to it, though, in 'Visuddhimagga -the Path of Purification' ? ....or maybe I'm wrong.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...ation-Excerpts

never seen any abhidhamma

...but you quoted it #2 here:

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...ght=abhidhamma

[Madjostok]

yes....i have read one single Abhidhamma quote from one of Payutto's books

my sincere view is the current scholarly trend exhibited by monks such as Sujato and Alayano is unprofitable

both make extensive recourse to the Chinese Agamas, which the thread you highlighted shows make little sense

the Chinese Agamas are basically rubbish, such as the First Sermon Agama, which does not even explain what suffering is, what its cause is, what the path is, etc

what use is a supposed sermon on the 4 Noble Truths that offers no practical detail?

i am sorry to give my harsh opinion but this kind of speculative scholarship, imo, is pointless, to say the least

for example, regardless of the authenticity of MN 117, it is one of the best suttas in the Nikayas from a practical point of view

the pursuit of debunking suttas to suit one's idiosyncratic point of view is an unprofitable endeavour

with metta

[lionsiy]

I have but if I quoted them, the Snake of MN 22 may rear its ugly & dangerous head

I do not think they exist, but I am always willing to revisit the SuttaVinaya for any clarification, however slight. Please share any Suttas which come to your mind in this connection re: momentariness/two truths.

I'd be interested in reading a sensible debate about abhidhamma, especially as its been mentioned here in the past.

Momentariness, per the abhidhamma, is fundamentally a theory of flux, a theory of incessant change.

Two truths, per the abhidhamma, is fundamentally a theory of conventional truth and ultimate truth, or put another way, conventional reality and ultimate reality.

These two ideas do not appear in the Suttas, although abhidhamma theorists generally suggest that these two ideas can be extrapolated from the Suttas. In any event, these two ideas are often mentioned whenever Buddhism is discussed in any detail, and so I thought it might be important to note where these ideas come from.

[pirinosa]

Momentariness, per the abhidhamma, is fundamentally a theory of flux, a theory of incessant change.

so...how does such a theory accord or not accord to our experience reality?

Two truths, per the abhidhamma, is fundamentally a theory of conventional truth and ultimate truth, or put another way, conventional reality and ultimate reality. so...how does such a theory accord or not accord to our experience reality?

[petrarkaponye]

Two truths, per the abhidhamma, is fundamentally a theory of conventional truth and ultimate truth, or put another way, conventional reality and ultimate reality.

Allthough completely irrelevant to this discussion, relative and ultimate truth are mentioned in Tibetan Buddhism also.

[MatueHarton]

so...how does such a theory accord or not accord to our experience reality?

You said

The division between an ultimate truth and a conventional truth exists in the suttas

The Buddha taught the doctrine of momentariness

but these two statements are false, by all accounts. Rather than running around wildly, let's focus on this preliminary point: these two ideas are not present in the Suttas. Given that the two truths doctrine exists in the Mahayana literature, perhaps that would be a better topic for Beyond Belief; so, let us focus on momentariness.

This idea is not found in the Suttas, but it becomes a very significant part of Theravada Buddhism with Buddhaghosa, the author of the Visuddhimagga. Since this manual is often considered the meditation guide par excellence (within Theravada, anyway), that it contains mistaken views is troubling, to say the least...

But I get ahead of myself. You claim that momentariness was taught by the Buddha. Please show us this teaching.

[klubneras]

but these two statements are false, by all accounts. Rather than running around wildly, let's focus on this preliminary point: these two ideas are not present in the Suttas.

I am not interested in a discussion about suttas

Something being in a sutta or scripture does not make it true or false

Suttas are just paper with words on them & a poisonous snake when handled unskilfully

[mylittlejewelaa]

Allthough completely irrelevant to this discussion, relative and ultimate truth are mentioned in Tibetan Buddhism also.

Completely relevant to this discussion, relative & ultimate truth were taught by Ajahn Chah

Thus how can one take seriously monks that declare their teacher but teach contrary to their teacher?

Surely, one is either one's teacher or not one's teacher?

[intisgunkas]

let us focus on momentariness. This idea is not found in the Suttas...

hi Dave

you formerly said momentariness, per the abhidhamma, is fundamentally a theory of flux, a theory of incessant change

are you denying the suttas teach a theory of flux and incessant change?

are you denying experienceable reality is one of flux and incessant change?

[VardyCodarexyz]

I thought it might be important to note where these ideas come from.

These ideas come from experiencable reality

For example, if one speaks: "Barrack Obama" or "Muhammad Ali", these words represents a certain reality to most human beings

But if one speaks: "Dependent co-originated elements", to most human beings, these words represent nothing at all

Thus these two realities, in actual reality, seem to be two different realities

[DesautocaD]

Since this manual is often considered the meditation guide par excellence (within Theravada, anyway), that it contains mistaken views is troubling, to say the least...

the Buddha said, when one searches the whole world, one finds no-one more loveable than oneself

similarly, when one searches the whole world, one finds nothing more troubling than one's own ignorance & delusion

as for the Vissiddhimagga, i can only say, its views on meditation are far superior & practical to those you have posted on this forum

the Vissuddhimagga does OK with the 1st, 2nd & 4th tetrads albeit not par excellence

but then your personal views on Anapanasati are way off the mark

you seem to be asserting the same false premises as Sujato, in declaring adherence to the suttas

the Vissiddhimagga is also an attempt to offer detailed explanation of the brevity of the suttas

to declare adherence to misunderstood suttas is not grounds for par excellence

regards