- The Expositor (Atthasalini). B Commentary On The Dhammasangani The First Book Of The Abhidhamma Pitaka. Translated by Pe Maung Tin. pp. 35-38,
Thus as rehearsed at the Council, the Abhidhamma is a Pitaka by Pitaka-classification, Khuddaka-Nikaya by Nikaya-classification, [28] Veyyakarana by Part-classification and constitutes two or three thousand units of text by the classification of textual units. One of those bhikkhus who studied the Abhidhamma once sat in the midst of bhikkhus who knew all the five Nikayas, and quoting the text (sutta) from the Abhidhamma taught the Doctrine thus:
[Preacher] ‘The aggregate of matter is unmoral; of the four (mental) aggregates some are moral, some immoral, and some unmoral. Ten sense-organs are unmoral; the (remaining) two sense-organs may be moral, immoral, or unmoral. Sixteen elements are unmoral; the (remaining) two elements may be moral, immoral, or unmoral. The Fact of the Origination of ill is immoral; the Fact of the Path is moral; the Fact of Cessation is unmoral; the Fact of ill may be moral, immoral, or unmoral. Ten controlling powers are unmoral; the controlling power of grief is immoral; the controlling power of (intellect which prompts and inspires us)—“I shall come to know the unknown”—is moral; four controlling powers may be moral or unmoral; six controlling powers may be moral, immoral or unmoral.’
A bhikkhu, seated there, asked,
‘Preacher, you quote a long text as though you were going to encircle Mount Sineru; what text is it?’
[Preacher] ‘Abhidhamma text, brother.’
[Bhikkhu] ‘Why do you quote the Abhidhamma text ? Does it not behove you to quote other texts spoken by the Buddha?’
(Preacher) ‘ Brother, by whom was the Abhidhamma taught?’
[Bhikkhu] ‘Not by the Buddha.’
(Preacher) ‘But did you, brother, study the Vinaya-Pitaka ?’
[Bhikkhu] ‘No, brother, I did not.’
(Preacher) ‘Methinks, because you have not studied the Vinaya-Pitaka, you say so in ignorance.’
[Bhikkhu] ‘I have, indeed, brother, studied some Vinaya.’
(Preacher) ‘Then that has been badly acquired. You must have been seated at one end of the assembly and dozing. A person who leaves the world under such teachers as yourself to give the Refuge-formula, or a person who receives the full ordination under a chapter of such teachers as yourself, who have badly studied the Vinaya, does amiss. And why ? Because of this badly “studying some Vinaya.” For it has been said by the Buddha:1 “ If without any intention of reviling the Vinaya one were to instigate another, saying, Pray study the Suttas or Gath as or Abhidhamma first and afterwards you will learn the Vinaya—-there is no offence in him.” (Again, in the Bhikkhuni Vibhanga:2 “A bhikkhuni is guilty of a minor offence) if she questions on the Abhidhamma or Vinaya after getting permission (to question) on the Suttanta, or on the Suttanta or Vinaya after getting permission (to question) on the Abhidhamma, or on the Suttanta or Abhidhamma after getting permission (to question) on the Vinaya.” But you do not know even that much.” 3
With so much refutation was the heretic put down. The Mahdgosinga Sutta is even a stronger authority (to show that the Abhidhamma is the Buddha’s word). For therein when Sariputta, the Generalissimo of the Law, approached the Teacher to inform him of the reciprocal questions and answers that took place between Mahamoggallana and himself, and told how the former had answered, (the Master said) [29] ‘Brother Sariputta, in the religion the talk of two bhikkhus on the Abhidhamma, each asking and answering the other without faltering, is in accord with the Dhamma. Now such a bhikkhu, brother Sariputta, might enhance the beauty of the Gosinga Sala Forest.’4 The Teacher, far from saying that bhikkhus, who knew Abhidhamma, were outside his religion, lifted his drum-like neck and filling (with breath) his mouth, fraught as the full-moon with blessings, emitted his godlike voice congratulating Moggallana thus: ‘Well done, well done, Sariputta ! One should answer rightly as Moggallana has done; Moggallana is indeed a preacher of the Dhamma.’ And tradition has it that those bhikkhus only who know Abhidhamma are true preachers of the Dhamma; the rest, though they speak on the Dhamma, are not preachers thereof. And why? They, in speaking on the Dhamma, confuse the different kinds of Kamma and of its results, the distinction between mind and matter, and the different kinds of states. The students of Abhidhamma do not thus get confused; hence a bhikkhu who knows Abhidhamma, whether he preaches the Dhamma or not, will be able to answer questions whenever asked. He alone, therefore, is a true preacher of the Dhamma.
RobertKKeymaster
July 19, 2020 at 6:57 am#1115
n dhamma-list@y…, robertkirkpatrick@r… wrote:
— Dear David,
Thanks. Comments below :
I have also seen people (on other lists) be ego oriented about
study of Abhidhamma (I study Abhidhamma). So I have been afraid to
look
at it (More ego) therefore avoidance.
Right. Well the fact is some people do get conceited about their
knowledge of Abhidhamma.
The thing is we are full of conceit and it doesn’t so much get
bigger by studying a hard subject such as Abhidhamma – rather the
innate conceit takes Abhidhamma as an object.
It is not right for one who studies correctly to keep on with their
conceited ways, though. If so they are not sincere, they are just
having book learning and they are almost insulting the Dhamma with
such behaviour.
For whatever reason forest tradition has always attracted me. Tan
Achaan
Chah was once asked if he had his students study Abhidhamma. He
said, “of
course.” Then he was asked, “what books on Abhidhamma do you
recomended
to start with?” “Only here,” as he pointed to his heart.
With due respect to Acharn Cha – and perhaps it was just an off-hand
comment that has been seized on by some of his students, I don’t know-
I think this is not a wise thing to say.
We have been ‘looking into our own “heart” since beginningless time.
It is only by learning the Buddha’s Dhamma – which goes utterly
against the flow of deeply held ‘commonsense’ ideas that profound
insight develops.
In the Intro. to the Vibhanga(Abhidhamma pitaka) (Pali text society)
Iggelden writes
“It is all very well to say ‘I know what needs to be done to break
the continuity of rebirth and death’. In fact very few people know of
even the most elementary reasons for the continuity of process, let
alone of breaking it. It is the detailed description, analysis and
reasons given for this cyclic process that the scriptures spend so
much care in putting before us.
It is all very well to say ‘What do I want to know all these
definitions of terms for, it only clutters the mind?’The question is,
though, how many people when they seriously ask themselves as to the
extent and range of some such apparently simple terms as greed,
hatred and ignorance, can know their full and proper implications and
manifestations within their own thoughts and actions…This the
scriptures are at pains to make clear to even the dullest
reader…”Endquote. He goes on in a similar vein for pages.
The Dhamma is above all for practising; but if practice is not
informed by correct theory one is likely to follow paths that come to
deadends. One might not even know one has been following the wrong
way. One might even think they have now fathomed the matter and
take ‘wrong release’ for the real thing.
I wrote most of this for other readers, David, as I know you see the
advantage of study already.
best wishes
robert
— End forwarded message —