Departing from Traditional Axioms: The Onset of Rejection of the Abhidhamma and the Commentaries

This will be a general discussion addressing the notable shift emerging within certain contemporary circles of the modernized form of Theravāda Buddhism (English-speaking ones in particular, others more broadly), especially in the digital sphere represented by internet forums. A new mindset has surfaced—marked by skepticism and rejection of what is referenced in the aforementioned title.

Any thoughts or input on this matter are welcome as we attempt to trace the contours of this evolving “trend.” It is sincerely hoped that the discussion remains cordial.

  • Qs for discussion:
  • When did this rejection begin?
  • Who are its founding voices and main proponents, and who are its adopters (such as prominent individuals, traditions, etc.)?

It was so even soon after the passing of the Buddha:
From the Atthasalini (PTS the Expositor, introductory discourse (p 35-40)

Thus as rehearsed at the Council, the Abhidhamma is a Piṭaka by Piṭaka-classification, Khuddaka-Nikāya by Nikāya-classification, [28] Veyyākaraṇa 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 Nikāyas,¹ and quoting the text (sutta) from the Abhidhamma taught the Doctrine thus:
‘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.’²

A bhikkhu, seated there, asked, ‘Preacher, you quote a long text as though you were going to encircle Mount Sineru; what text is it?’
‘Abhidhamma text, brother.’
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?
‘Not by the Buddha.

Thus even in those halcyon days there were such. It will always be this way, in fact it will only get worse.
The first time I heard Abhidhamma I felt it was describing life exactly as it is. Far beyond any of the trivial things in science. For others Abhidhamma leaves them cold.
Why the difference.
Because all of us have vastly different accumulations spanning aeons.

We should be sympathetic and try to help anyone learn Abhidhamma who shows any interest - as now is the time they can laydown merit that will last an age. And I believe if they make a start in distinguishing nama from rupa then Abhidhamma will seem as if written on the wall of life.

And tradition has it that those bhikkhus who only 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. To this the Teacher referred when he approvingly said, ‘Moggallāna has well replied to questions.’ He who prohibits (the teaching of) Abhidhamma gives a blow to the Wheel of the Conqueror, denies omniscience, subverts the Teacher’s knowledge full of confidence, deceives the audience, obstructs the path of the Ariyas, manifests himself as advocating one⁴ of the eighteen causes of dissension in the Order, is capable of doing acts for which the doer is liable to be excommunicated, or admonished,² or scorned (by the Order), and should be dismissed after the particular act of excommunication, admonition, or scorn, and reduced to living on scraps of food.

more from the Expositor to give background useful for this thread.

But if the heretic should say, had Abhidhamma been taught by the Buddha, there would have been an introduction prefatory to it, just as in many thousands of the Suttas the preface generally runs as, ‘One day the Blessed One was staying in Rājagaha,’ etc., he should be contradicted thus: ‘The Jātaka, Suttavibhaṅga, Dhammapada, and so on, have no such introductions, and yet they were spoken by the Buddha.²¹ Furthermore he should be told, ‘O wise one, this Abhidhamma is the province of the Buddhas, not of others; the descent of the Buddhas, their birth, their attainment of perfect wisdom, their turning of the Wheel of the Law, [30] their performance of the Twin Miracle, their visit to the devas,²² their preaching in the deva-world, and their descent therefrom are all manifest. It would be unreasonable to steal the Treasure-elephant, or horse of the universal Monarch and yoke it to a cart and drive about, or the Treasure-Wheel and fix it to a hay cart and drive about, or to use the Treasure-jewel capable of shedding light to the distance of a yojana by putting it in a cotton basket—and why? Because they are royal property. Even so Abhidhamma is not the province of others; it is the province of the Buddhas only. Such a discourse as the Abhidhamma can be taught by them only; for their descent is manifest … likewise their return from the deva-world. There is, O wise one, no need for an introduction to Abhidhamma.’
When this is so stated, the heterodox opponent would be unable to adduce an illustration in support of his cause.

The Elder Tissabhūti, resident at the Central Park, wishing to show that the place of the Great Enlightenment³ is an introduction to Abhidhamma, quoted the Padēsavihārasutta—‘Bhikkhus, by whatever mode of life I lived after I first attained Buddhahood, I have [these two weeks] lived by that mode of living.’⁴ This he expanded: ‘There are ten positions: of the aggregates, the field of sense, the elements, the Truths, the controlling powers, the causal signs, applications of mindfulness, jhāna, mind, and so on. Of these the Teacher at the foot of the great Wisdom Tree intuited the three things fully.’
He intuited the twelve sense-organs and the eighteen elements fully; for three months he lived only, by way of feeling, in the field and in the element of mental presentations. He intuited the four Truths fully; for three months he lived only by way of feeling in the Truth of Ill. He intuited the twenty-two controlling faculties fully; for three months he lived only by way of the five emotional indriyas.² He fully intuited the chain³ of the causal genesis; for three months he lived by way of feeling with touch as its cause. He intuited the four applications in mindfulness fully; for three months he lived only by way of feeling to which mindfulness was intensely applied. [31] He intuited the four Jhānas fully; for three months he lived only by way of feeling among the factors of Jhāna. He intuited mind fully; for three months he lived by way of feeling mind only. He intuited (other) states fully; for three months he lived only by way of (one or other of) the triplet of feeling.⁴ Thus the Elder set forth an introduction to Abhidhamma by means of the Padēsavihārasutta.

The Elder Sumanadeva, resident in a village, while translating the Scriptures⁵ at the base of the Brazen Palace, thought: ‘This heterodox believer, who does not know the introduction (nidāna) to Abhidhamma, is just like one crying (helpless) with uplifted arms in the forest, or like one who has filed a lawsuit without witness.’⁶ And in order to show the introduction he said, ‘At one time the Blessed One lived among gods on the Paṇḍukambala rock at the foot of the Pāricchattaka tree in Tāvatimsa. Then the Blessed One taught Abhidhamma to the Tāvatimsa gods thus: ‘moral, immoral, and unmoral states of consciousness,’ etc.¹

Whereas in the Sutta discourses there is but one introduction, in Abhidhamma there are two: one on the Career and its Goal, and one on the teaching. Of these the former comprises the events from the time of Dīpaṅkara of the Ten Powers up to the time of attaining the throne under the Wisdom Tree; the latter comprises the events between the last mentioned and the time of turning the Wheel of the Dhamma. Thus for proficiency in the introduction to Abhidhamma, which has both of these, the following questions should be asked:

From which source has this Abhidhamma originated?

Where has it matured?

Where, 4. when, and 5. by whom was it mastered?

Where, 7. when, and 8. by whom was it studied?

Where, 10. for whose benefit, and 11. for what purpose was it taught?

By whom was it accepted?

Who are learning it?

Who have learnt it?

Who know it by heart?

Whose word is it?
And 17. by whom has it been handed down?

The reply to these is:

Faith which urges to enlightenment was the source.

In the five hundred and fifty Jātakas.

At the foot of the Wisdom Tree.

On the full-moon day of Visākha.

By the omniscient Buddha.

At the foot of the Wisdom Tree.
[32] 7. During the seven days spent at the Jewel House.

By the omniscient Buddha.

Among the Tāvatimsa devas.

Of the devas.

For release from the four Floods.

By the devas.

Probationers and good worldlings.

Saints free from the Intoxicants.

Those who lay it to heart.

Of the Blessed the Arahant, the Buddha Supreme.

By the unbroken line of teachers.

It was conveyed up till the time of the third Council by the Elders Sāriputta, Bhaddaji, Sohita, Piyajali, Piyapāla, Piyadassi, Kosiyaputta, Siggava, Sandeha, Moggalliputta, Visuddhat, Dhammirāja, Dāsaka, Sonaka, Revata, and others. After that, it was conveyed by a succession of their pupils. Thus in India it has been conveyed by an unbroken line of teachers. And to this island of Ceylon subsequently came Mahinda, Iddhiya,¹ Uttiya,² Bhaddanāma, and Sambala. These greatly wise ones brought it to this island from India, and thenceforward till to-day it has been conveyed by the line of teachers known as their pupils. Of Abhidhamma thus conveyed, the introduction of the Career and the Goal, from the time of Dīpaṅkara of the Ten Powers till the attainment of the throne under the Wisdom Tree, and the introduction of the Teaching till the turning of the Wheel of the Law will be clear from the tradition:

(Here follows the Dīreṇidāna of the Jātaka Commentary, edited by Fausbøll, vol. i., pp. 2–47, and translated by Rhys Davids, Buddhist Birth Stories, pp. 2–58.)

What is peculiar is that these objections arose not only in Theravāda, but in other schools as well. Nevertheless, no sub-school within Theravāda emerged that rejected the third basket. In any case, what occupied my mind was an inquiry into the background of why individuals adopt it within the English-speaking Buddhist community. Such modern attitudes are also present within the Thai traditions.

It is interesting. There are different reasons for this rejection. Some don’t like the teaching on momentariness that is so much a part of Theravada. Others think Nibbana is a type of consciousness so they have to reject the Theravada for that. I don’t see much difference with regard to the English speaking world and the rest although I guess the fact that many scholars write in English has a bearing.
It all comes down to view really.
Bhikkhu Bodhi nails it here:

Right view and wrong view each operate on two levels: one regarding the nature of actuality and the other regarding doctrines about the nature of actuality.
Right view is able both to understand the nature of actuality and to discriminate between right and wrong doctrines about the nature of actuality.
Wrong view both confuses the nature of actuality and cannot distinguish between right and wrong doctrines about the nature of actuality.
Only when right view prevails will the correct discrimination between right and wrong view be made. So long as wrong view prevails, their distinction will remain unseen, right view will be unable to exercise its higher functions, and the development of the remaining path factors will be impaired. p3. All Embracing Net of Views

It is why we need to begin with understanding at the level of pariyatti - especially that unique teaching of the Buddhas- anatta. If that is not well established then one can vear off anywhere.

30 or 40 years ago the Thai Monk Buddadasa was very popular and he rejected some of Abhidhamma and Commentaries and his ideas were taken up by a few westerners.