Respect for Theravada = respect for Abhidhamma
 

Elsehwere on this board, a member described the Abhidhamma like this:

That statement does not reflect Theravada perspective. The Abhidhamma is discussed here. It's part of the Tipitaka. It's part of the Theravada tradition. The tradition regards it as a teaching of the Buddha.

Fallacy Appeal to Tradition. Please show the Buddha teaching "abhidhamma": "Monks, I will teach you Abhidhamma, the Highest Dhamma, forget all the hina crap I have been kidding the peasants with!"

Perhaps now would be a fitting time for you to discover for the first time the Four Great References the Buddha lays down in the Maha Parinibbana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya.

I concur with Jechbi. Unlike Stuka, I am personally not inclined to defend the integrity of the term "Theravada".

Whilst "Theravada" includes within it the Pali suttas, it does not fully represent the teachings of the Pali.

Theravada is similar to the Catholicism, which includes the Bible within it, but does not always represent the reported teachings of Jesus Christ.

Despite its misnomer "Teaching of The Elders", Theravada is just another sect, just like the Gelug or "Yellow Hat" branch of Tibetan Buddhism is just another sect.

Imo, Stuka is barking up the wrong tree.

Kind regards

Element

And what makes you think that I am...?

OK. Sorry http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/dunce.gif

Did the Buddha teach Abhidhamma?

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/shock.gif

Oh. My. Buddha.

Heresy! Burn the witch!



....are you sure that is not that Terrorvadan Troublemaker Stuka in disguise?

---- or some EleMental Sock Puppet???

Say it isn't so!!!

Hi Jechbi,

And what can anyone do if some only accept the Dvepitaka instead of the Tipitaka? It's their assertion and right as well isn't it, which even the traditional Mahaviharins, despite their staunch orthodoxy, have to accept that the world of Theravada is not theirs alone in the end? And when brought into the light of the Four Frames of Reference as mentioned in an earlier post, what would you opine is the best route on this issue?

Most likely, the view of 'Dvepitaka-ists' will remain the domain of the 'fringe' crowd rather than the 'accepted majority', online and in real life, and I tend to agree with Element that Theravada is just another sect utilising the Pali Canon as part of its tradition, but as to whether or not it fully complies with it, that's another issue.

And from my experience with Theravadins, I guess even amongst this 'fringe' group, to compare with the Christians for example, some will take a similar evangelical Protestant view where the Apocryphal Books are devoid of any moral/spiritual value and hence they are completely rejected and expunged from the biblical canon as non divinely inspired and man made fables.

Yet, the traditional Protestant view is that, it is still befitting of some moral/spiritual value and when studied with an open mind, one can compare and contrast it with the actual teachings of Christ himself and benefit. And amongst the traditionalists, some view them as divinely inspired alongside with those who think it to be mere pious reading.

I would agree with the Elder Ananda on this at the end of the day...
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....072.than.html
'Those who teach a Dhamma for the abandoning of passion, for the abandoning of aversion, for the abandoning of delusion — their Dhamma is well-taught.
Those who have practiced for the abandoning of passion, for the abandoning of aversion, for the abandoning of delusion — they have practiced well in this world.
Those whose passion... aversion... delusion is abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising: they, in this world, are well-gone.'"

"How amazing, sir. How astounding, that there is neither extolling of one's own Dhamma nor deprecation of another's, but just the teaching of the Dhamma in its proper sphere, speaking to the point without mentioning oneself.

Hi Jechbi,

Are you an offline Theravadin or Mahayana practitioner - or neither ?
I'm sorry if that seems like a silly question, but so far it hasn't been very clear to me at all.

with kind regards,

A-D

I wonder if Jechbi sees his/her use of the highly pejorative term "hinayana" as being "respectful of Theravada"?

The problem with your assumptions in the OP, Jechbi, is that you fail to acknowledge that in the thread in question I clearly distinguished between "Theravada" teachings and the teachings of the Buddha. Also, you are fallaciously making a categorical statement about "Theravada" as if it were a single cohesive group. You must be aware that there are sizeable groups of Theravadans who do not indulge in the superstitions and instead focus on the liberative teachings of the Buddha, for one example, some of the Thai Forest Tradition and folks who have been influenced by its emphasis on the Buddha's teachings rather than later contrivances like so-called "abhidhamma". One famous monk of the Thai forest Tradition has been quoted as recommending that we throw the "abhidhamma" into the sea. In this way, you cannot and do not speak for "the tradition" when you claim "the tradition regards it as a teachings of the Buddha". Which it is clearly not.

That statement does not reflect Theravada perspective. The Abhidhamma is discussed here. It's part of the Tipitaka. It's part of the Theravada tradition. The tradition regards it as a teaching of the Buddha. In this light, you have quoted me out of context and misrepresented what I have said, which seems to be the sort of tactics that you rightly complain about in your blog with petty teacup tyrants such as...
I ask again, Jechbi, are you a Theravadin?

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. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/grin.gif

Yes. This is true.

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/grin.gif

From ''A still Forest Pool " :

The Chicken or the Egg?

During his first visit to England, Achaan Chah spoke to many Buddhist groups. One evening after a talk he received a question from a dignified English lady who had spent many years studying the complex cybernetics of the mind according to the eighty-nine classes of consciousness in the Buddhist abhidharma psychology texts. Would he please explain certain of the more difficult aspects of this system of psychology to her so she could continue her study?

Dharma teaches us to let go. But at first, we naturally cling to the principles of Dharma. The wise person takes these principles and uses them as tools to discover the essence of our life.

Sensing how caught up she was in intellectual concepts rather than benefiting from practice in her own heart, Achaan Chah answered her quite directly,

''You, madam, are like one who keeps hens in her yard," he told her, "and goes around picking up the chicken droppings instead of the eggs."

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Bo...orest_Pool.htm

from Ajahn Sumedho's "Gratitude for Luang Po Chah":

"What impressed me about Luang Por Chah was his emphasis on teaching the Four Noble Truths. I hadn’t come across this before with other teachers, or perhaps I just hadn’t picked it up – there was always a problem around language because I didn’t speak Thai.

Many of the meditation techniques I learned were based on Abhidhamma teaching, which I found very boring. The last thing I wanted to learn was all that incredibly complex Abhidhamma.

I remember going to an Abhidhamma teacher in Bangkok who gave lectures on it in English; I was never so bored in my life. I thought, “That is not what I want from this religion”.

http://www.forestsangha.org/index.ph...edho&Itemid=25

It's hard to reach any other conclusion, given the history of the spread of Buddhism.