Difference between revisions of "Abhidhamma origins"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:-lent-.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:-lent-.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
<poem> | <poem> | ||
[[Tradition]][3] says that the [[Buddha]] [[thought]] the [[Abhidhamma]] out immediately after his [[enlightenment]], but only [[taught]] it some years later, to the [[gods]]. He then repeated it to [[Sariputta]], who handed it on to his [[disciples]]. This [[tradition]] is also evident in the [[Parivara]], a very late addition to the [[Vinaya Pitaka]][4], which mentions in a concluding verse of praise to the [[Buddha]] that this best of creatures, the [[lion]], [[taught]] the [[three pitakas]].[5]. | [[Tradition]][3] says that the [[Buddha]] [[thought]] the [[Abhidhamma]] out immediately after his [[enlightenment]], but only [[taught]] it some years later, to the [[gods]]. He then repeated it to [[Sariputta]], who handed it on to his [[disciples]]. This [[tradition]] is also evident in the [[Parivara]], a very late addition to the [[Vinaya Pitaka]][4], which mentions in a concluding verse of praise to the [[Buddha]] that this best of creatures, the [[lion]], [[taught]] the [[three pitakas]].[5]. | ||
| − | [[Scholars]] however generally date the [[Abhidhamma]] works to around the third century BCE, 100 to 200 years after the [[death]] of the [[Buddha]]. Therefore the seven [[Abhidhamma]] works are generally claimed by [[scholars]] not to represent the words of the [[Buddha]] himself, but those of [[disciples]] and great [[scholars]][6]. Dr {{Wiki|Rupert Gethin}} however said that important [[elements]] of [[abhidhamma]] [[Wikipedia:scientific method|methodology]] probably go back to the [[Buddha's]] [[lifetime]][7]. A. K. Warder and Dr [[Peter Harvey]] both suggested early dates for the [[matikas]] on which most of the [[Abidhamma]] [[books]] are based. [[Abhidhamma]] started out as [[elaboration]] of the [[suttas]], but later developed {{Wiki|independent}} [[doctrines]][8]. | + | |
| + | [[Scholars]] however generally date the [[Abhidhamma]] works to around the third century BCE, 100 to 200 years after the [[death]] of the [[Buddha]]. Therefore the seven [[Abhidhamma]] works are generally claimed by [[scholars]] not to represent the words of the [[Buddha]] himself, but those of [[disciples]] and great [[scholars]][6]. Dr {{Wiki|Rupert Gethin}} however | ||
| + | |||
| + | said that important [[elements]] of [[abhidhamma]] [[Wikipedia:scientific method|methodology]] probably go back to the [[Buddha's]] [[lifetime]][7]. A. K. Warder and Dr [[Peter Harvey]] both suggested early dates for the [[matikas]] on which most of the [[Abidhamma]] [[books]] are based. [[Abhidhamma]] started out as [[elaboration]] of the [[suttas]], but later developed {{Wiki|independent}} [[doctrines]][8]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | As the last major [[division]] of the [[canon]], the [[Abhidhamma Pitaka]] has had a checkered history. It was not accepted as {{Wiki|canonical}} by the [[Mahasanghika]] school[1][9] and several other schools[10]. Another school included most of the [[Khuddaka Nikaya]] within the [[Abhidhamma Pitaka]][1]. Also, the [[Pali]] version of the [[Abhidhamma]] is a strictly | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | [[Theravada]] collection, and has little in common with the [[Abhidhamma]] works [[recognized]] by other [[Buddhist]] schools[11]. The various [[Abhidhamma]] [[philosophies]] of the various [[early schools]] have no agreement on [[doctrine]][12] and belong to the period of 'Divided [[Buddhism]]'[12] (as opposed to Undivided [[Buddhism]]). The earliest texts of | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | the [[Pali Canon]] have no mention of (the texts of) the [[Abhidhamma Pitaka]][13]. The [[Abhidhamma]] is also not mentioned in some reports of the [[First Buddhist Council]], which do mention the [[existence]] of the texts of the [[Vinaya]] and either the five [[Nikayas]][14] or the four [[Agamas]][15]. Other accounts do include the [[Abhidhamma]].[16] | ||
| − | |||
[[File:217106.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:217106.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
| − | In the [[Theravadin]] [[Abhidhamma Pitaka]], unlike the [[Abhidharma Pitaka]] of the [[Sarvastivada school]], {{Wiki|ontological}} theorizing is absent, and the question of {{Wiki|ontological}} {{Wiki|status}} of [[dhammas]] remains a moot point. The notion of [[sabhava]] ([[Sanskrit]]: [[svabhava]]) is only utilized in late [[Theravadin]] texts.[17] The [[doctrine]] of [[momentariness]] is also a late addition to [[Theravada]] [[thought]].[18] It only appears at the [[time]] of [[Buddhaghosa]].[19] | + | In the [[Theravadin]] [[Abhidhamma Pitaka]], unlike the [[Abhidharma Pitaka]] of the [[Sarvastivada school]], {{Wiki|ontological}} theorizing is absent, and the question of {{Wiki|ontological}} {{Wiki|status}} of [[dhammas]] remains a |
| + | |||
| + | moot point. The notion of [[sabhava]] ([[Sanskrit]]: [[svabhava]]) is only utilized in late [[Theravadin]] texts.[17] The [[doctrine]] of [[momentariness]] is also a late addition to [[Theravada]] [[thought]].[18] It only appears at the [[time]] of [[Buddhaghosa]].[19] | ||
[[Buddhavacana]] | [[Buddhavacana]] | ||
| − | [[Theravada]] [[Buddhists]] accept that the [[Abhidhamma]] is a valuable and beneficial resource. But there is some [[debate]] as to whether it is [[Buddhavacana]] (the exact words of the [[Buddha]]) or not. Classical [[Theravada]] [[Buddhists]] see it as the [[word]] of [[Buddha]] described by the [[tradition]] of the [[Buddha]] ascending to the [[heavens]] to teach the [[devas]] and then [[Sariputta]] to the [[monks]]. Many {{Wiki|Modern}} [[Theravada]] [[Buddhists]] also accept this account, whereas some are skeptical if it is exactly or completely [[Buddhavacana]]. Some [[feel]] that it represents great teachings, but authored by later [[disciples]] as more of a commentary, than the words of the [[Buddha]] as found in the [[Suttas]] and [[Vinaya]]. | + | |
| + | |||
| + | [[Theravada]] [[Buddhists]] accept that the [[Abhidhamma]] is a valuable and beneficial resource. But there is some [[debate]] as to whether it is [[Buddhavacana]] (the exact words of the [[Buddha]]) or not. Classical [[Theravada]] [[Buddhists]] see it as the [[word]] of [[Buddha]] described by the [[tradition]] of the [[Buddha]] ascending to the | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[heavens]] to teach the [[devas]] and then [[Sariputta]] to the [[monks]]. Many {{Wiki|Modern}} [[Theravada]] [[Buddhists]] also accept this account, whereas some are skeptical if it is exactly or completely [[Buddhavacana]]. Some [[feel]] that it represents great teachings, but authored by later [[disciples]] as more of a commentary, than the words of the [[Buddha]] as found in the [[Suttas]] and [[Vinaya]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
Arguments that it may not be [[Buddhavacana]] include: | Arguments that it may not be [[Buddhavacana]] include: | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
1. The [[Abhidhamma]] was not recited at the [[First Buddhist council]]. | 1. The [[Abhidhamma]] was not recited at the [[First Buddhist council]]. | ||
| Line 22: | Line 53: | ||
5. It is not mentioned as one of the nine branches of the teachings (navanga, AN, II.103). | 5. It is not mentioned as one of the nine branches of the teachings (navanga, AN, II.103). | ||
6. It contains [[information]] and a style not found in the [[Suttas]] and [[Vinaya]]. | 6. It contains [[information]] and a style not found in the [[Suttas]] and [[Vinaya]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
[[File:(Kammatth.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:(Kammatth.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
Of the above arguments, number 6 is probably the weakest, because if it did not contain new [[information]], what would be the use of it? If it just repeated what is already in the [[Suttas]], we would have the [[three baskets]] of [[Suttas]], [[Vinaya]], and re-printing of the [[Suttas]]. So it is natural to expect the [[information]] to be different. | Of the above arguments, number 6 is probably the weakest, because if it did not contain new [[information]], what would be the use of it? If it just repeated what is already in the [[Suttas]], we would have the [[three baskets]] of [[Suttas]], [[Vinaya]], and re-printing of the [[Suttas]]. So it is natural to expect the [[information]] to be different. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
Arguments that it may be [[Buddhavacana]] include: | Arguments that it may be [[Buddhavacana]] include: | ||
| Line 35: | Line 70: | ||
5. The commentaries show that the [[Abhidhamma]] was recited at the First [[council]] and confirm the story of [[Buddha]] ascending to [[heaven]] to teach the [[Abhidhamma]]. | 5. The commentaries show that the [[Abhidhamma]] was recited at the First [[council]] and confirm the story of [[Buddha]] ascending to [[heaven]] to teach the [[Abhidhamma]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
(arguments for [[Buddhavacana]] from: RobertK, Abhidhamma.org) | (arguments for [[Buddhavacana]] from: RobertK, Abhidhamma.org) | ||
| + | |||
Of the above arguments, from a [[scholarly]] and historical position, number 5 is probably weakest because it is utilizing {{Wiki|data}} hundreds of years after the fact to confirm events which are not recorded from those events. | Of the above arguments, from a [[scholarly]] and historical position, number 5 is probably weakest because it is utilizing {{Wiki|data}} hundreds of years after the fact to confirm events which are not recorded from those events. | ||
[[File:220d36.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:220d36.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
Relying on the commentaries could be somewhat dubious. Ven. [[Dhammanando]], [[Bhante]] has reported that, "the [[Atthakathā]] starts its explanation with the [[word]] kira, meaning something like "so it is said that,", "it is reported that...", or "rumour has it that..." The use of kira indicates that the commentator is non-committal about the factualness of what he is reporting; if you like, it's {{Wiki|commentarial}} code for "take it with a pinch of [[salt]]" or "we don't insist that this is necessarily correct." (abhidhamma.org) | Relying on the commentaries could be somewhat dubious. Ven. [[Dhammanando]], [[Bhante]] has reported that, "the [[Atthakathā]] starts its explanation with the [[word]] kira, meaning something like "so it is said that,", "it is reported that...", or "rumour has it that..." The use of kira indicates that the commentator is non-committal about the factualness of what he is reporting; if you like, it's {{Wiki|commentarial}} code for "take it with a pinch of [[salt]]" or "we don't insist that this is necessarily correct." (abhidhamma.org) | ||
When discussing the use of the term [[Abhidhamma]] in the [[Suttas]], [[Theravada]] [[translator]], [[Bhikkhu Bodhi]], has stated: | When discussing the use of the term [[Abhidhamma]] in the [[Suttas]], [[Theravada]] [[translator]], [[Bhikkhu Bodhi]], has stated: | ||
| − | "Though the [[word]] cannot refer here to the [[Pitaka]] of that [[name]] obviously the product of a phase of [[Buddhist]] [[thought]] later than the [[Nikayas]] - it may well indicate a systematic and analytical approach to the [[doctrine]] that served as the original nucleus of the [[Abhidhamma Pitaka]]. In a careful study of the contexts in which the [[word]] '[[Abhidhamma]]' occurs in the [[Sutta]] [[Pitakas]] of several early recensions, the {{Wiki|Japanese}} [[Pali]] scholor [[Fumimaro Watanabe]] concludes that the [[Buddha's]] [[own]] [[disciples]] formed the {{Wiki|conception}} of [[Abhidhamma]] as an elementary [[philosophical]] study that attempted to define, analyse, and classify [[dhammas]] and to explore their mutual relations." --MN trans. pg. 1225 | + | |
| + | "Though the [[word]] cannot refer here to the [[Pitaka]] of that [[name]] obviously the product of a phase of [[Buddhist]] [[thought]] later than the [[Nikayas]] - it may well indicate a systematic and analytical approach to the [[doctrine]] that served as the original nucleus of the [[Abhidhamma Pitaka]]. In a careful study of the contexts in which the [[word]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '[[Abhidhamma]]' occurs in the [[Sutta]] [[Pitakas]] of several early recensions, the {{Wiki|Japanese}} [[Pali]] scholor [[Fumimaro Watanabe]] concludes that the [[Buddha's]] [[own]] [[disciples]] formed the {{Wiki|conception}} of [[Abhidhamma]] as an elementary [[philosophical]] study that attempted to define, analyse, and classify [[dhammas]] and to explore their mutual relations." --MN trans. pg. 1225 | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
In [[spite]] of the many arguments for and against the [[Abhidhamma]] as [[Buddhavacana]] or not, we can use [[Theravada]] [[Saddha]] ([[Faith]]) and personally study and test the {{Wiki|principles}} and see if they are beneficial and match and are compatible with the [[Dhamma]]. | In [[spite]] of the many arguments for and against the [[Abhidhamma]] as [[Buddhavacana]] or not, we can use [[Theravada]] [[Saddha]] ([[Faith]]) and personally study and test the {{Wiki|principles}} and see if they are beneficial and match and are compatible with the [[Dhamma]]. | ||
Latest revision as of 21:43, 6 June 2024
Tradition[3] says that the Buddha thought the Abhidhamma out immediately after his enlightenment, but only taught it some years later, to the gods. He then repeated it to Sariputta, who handed it on to his disciples. This tradition is also evident in the Parivara, a very late addition to the Vinaya Pitaka[4], which mentions in a concluding verse of praise to the Buddha that this best of creatures, the lion, taught the three pitakas.[5].
Scholars however generally date the Abhidhamma works to around the third century BCE, 100 to 200 years after the death of the Buddha. Therefore the seven Abhidhamma works are generally claimed by scholars not to represent the words of the Buddha himself, but those of disciples and great scholars[6]. Dr Rupert Gethin however
said that important elements of abhidhamma methodology probably go back to the Buddha's lifetime[7]. A. K. Warder and Dr Peter Harvey both suggested early dates for the matikas on which most of the Abidhamma books are based. Abhidhamma started out as elaboration of the suttas, but later developed independent doctrines[8].
As the last major division of the canon, the Abhidhamma Pitaka has had a checkered history. It was not accepted as canonical by the Mahasanghika school[1][9] and several other schools[10]. Another school included most of the Khuddaka Nikaya within the Abhidhamma Pitaka[1]. Also, the Pali version of the Abhidhamma is a strictly
Theravada collection, and has little in common with the Abhidhamma works recognized by other Buddhist schools[11]. The various Abhidhamma philosophies of the various early schools have no agreement on doctrine[12] and belong to the period of 'Divided Buddhism'[12] (as opposed to Undivided Buddhism). The earliest texts of
the Pali Canon have no mention of (the texts of) the Abhidhamma Pitaka[13]. The Abhidhamma is also not mentioned in some reports of the First Buddhist Council, which do mention the existence of the texts of the Vinaya and either the five Nikayas[14] or the four Agamas[15]. Other accounts do include the Abhidhamma.[16]
In the Theravadin Abhidhamma Pitaka, unlike the Abhidharma Pitaka of the Sarvastivada school, ontological theorizing is absent, and the question of ontological status of dhammas remains a
moot point. The notion of sabhava (Sanskrit: svabhava) is only utilized in late Theravadin texts.[17] The doctrine of momentariness is also a late addition to Theravada thought.[18] It only appears at the time of Buddhaghosa.[19]
Buddhavacana
Theravada Buddhists accept that the Abhidhamma is a valuable and beneficial resource. But there is some debate as to whether it is Buddhavacana (the exact words of the Buddha) or not. Classical Theravada Buddhists see it as the word of Buddha described by the tradition of the Buddha ascending to the
heavens to teach the devas and then Sariputta to the monks. Many Modern Theravada Buddhists also accept this account, whereas some are skeptical if it is exactly or completely Buddhavacana. Some feel that it represents great teachings, but authored by later disciples as more of a commentary, than the words of the Buddha as found in the Suttas and Vinaya.
Arguments that it may not be Buddhavacana include:
1. The Abhidhamma was not recited at the First Buddhist council.
2. The Abhidhamma was not recited at the Second Buddhist council and it was not until the Third Buddhist council before it was made official.
3. The story of the Buddha ascending to heaven to teach Abhidhamma is not in the Suttas.
4. The story of the Buddha ascending to heaven to teach Abhidhamma is not even in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, but rather in later commentaries.
5. It is not mentioned as one of the nine branches of the teachings (navanga, AN, II.103).
6. It contains information and a style not found in the Suttas and Vinaya.
Of the above arguments, number 6 is probably the weakest, because if it did not contain new information, what would be the use of it? If it just repeated what is already in the Suttas, we would have the three baskets of Suttas, Vinaya, and re-printing of the Suttas. So it is natural to expect the information to be different.
Arguments that it may be Buddhavacana include:
1. The term Abhidhamma is mentioned in the Suttas at various places.
2. It has the stamp of single mind.
3. Who but the Buddha could have fathomed the Abhidhamma.
4. There would have had to be a lengthy plot involving hundreds of monks actively lying and claiming that it was the Buddha Dhamma when it wasn't - and that is heavy kamma. I don't get that feeling about the ancient monks and nuns of Theravada. It is of course immaterial who taught it if we can apply it and see its truths.
5. The commentaries show that the Abhidhamma was recited at the First council and confirm the story of Buddha ascending to heaven to teach the Abhidhamma.
(arguments for Buddhavacana from: RobertK, Abhidhamma.org)
Of the above arguments, from a scholarly and historical position, number 5 is probably weakest because it is utilizing data hundreds of years after the fact to confirm events which are not recorded from those events.
Relying on the commentaries could be somewhat dubious. Ven. Dhammanando, Bhante has reported that, "the Atthakathā starts its explanation with the word kira, meaning something like "so it is said that,", "it is reported that...", or "rumour has it that..." The use of kira indicates that the commentator is non-committal about the factualness of what he is reporting; if you like, it's commentarial code for "take it with a pinch of salt" or "we don't insist that this is necessarily correct." (abhidhamma.org)
When discussing the use of the term Abhidhamma in the Suttas, Theravada translator, Bhikkhu Bodhi, has stated:
"Though the word cannot refer here to the Pitaka of that name obviously the product of a phase of Buddhist thought later than the Nikayas - it may well indicate a systematic and analytical approach to the doctrine that served as the original nucleus of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. In a careful study of the contexts in which the word
'Abhidhamma' occurs in the Sutta Pitakas of several early recensions, the Japanese Pali scholor Fumimaro Watanabe concludes that the Buddha's own disciples formed the conception of Abhidhamma as an elementary philosophical study that attempted to define, analyse, and classify dhammas and to explore their mutual relations." --MN trans. pg. 1225
In spite of the many arguments for and against the Abhidhamma as Buddhavacana or not, we can use Theravada Saddha (Faith) and personally study and test the principles and see if they are beneficial and match and are compatible with the Dhamma.
