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.

I’m still looking for quotes, but I think it began with some of the earliest PTS translators and their attempts to be “scholars” and try to question the commentaries.

I remember but cannot find the Rhys Davids’ comment describing the Abhidhamma as “The Valley of Dry Bones”. I think it was the Dhammasangani introduction, but I cannot find it.

I also remember reading doubts expressed about the commentary explanation of more than 60 devas being able to fit on a head of a needle. It was somewhere in the Digha Nikaya, maybe even the Mahaparinibbana sutta. I’m sure they would also doubt the size of Sakka’s throne.

I also noticed that ven Bodhi seemed to be less restrained in his comments for the footnotes in the SN and AN, maybe because it was actually his own work whereas MN was a joint venture, mostly an editing task for unfinished work by ven Nyanamoli. You have to understand, that if he complains 15% of the time, it has a profound effect.

Ven Bodhi makes subtle comments in his lectures and writings that cause a negative view of those who compiled, even the suttas themselves. In the maharahulaovada sutta discourse, Ven Bodhi repeatedly states, "I don’t know how they reported this (reading the mind of Ven Rahula), but this is what it means. Video and TimeStamp is here

As @RobertK mentioned, the commentaries and Abhidhamma “spoil” the attainments of those who believe they are attained. It makes Nibbana and jhana more difficult to attain. For instance, Ajahn Brahm is a disseminator of a Dark Jhana and speaks of a mystical beautiful breath. Nevertheless, there is a clear description of what is beautiful and how it relates to jhana concentration as well as anything wholesome. You can see this in my recent video here.

I’m not sure why, but those who read “Clearing The Path” by ven Nyanavira catch some type of mental state that an ajahn chah monk friend of mine called “The Nyanavirus”. Those infected by this are usually young monks who become quite angry at classical theravadans. They believe the Path is simple and now cluttered because of the Abhidhamma and commentaries. Perhaps that is why the book was titled “Clearing The Path.”? Nevertheless, the author who believed he had attained, had a terrible rare sickness that caused him to eventually kill himself.

Ajahn Sujato, will claim that 80% of the commentaries are true. But again, if one complains 20% of the time, it will have a profound effect on people and cause many to “throw the baby out with the bath water.” EBT’ers seem to reject the abhidhamma because they say they are vastly different across sects. However, I knew a couple of people who have actually studied both and they are very similar and vary only in a few points. It is those few points which cause a key doctrinal difference though. Sort of like the late ven Vaharaka and puredhamma saying anicca means “wishlessness” while agreeing with everything else. It is only one word that is different (or maybe a few more). EBT’ers and Ajahn Sujato often focus on the differences and often imply that new wine was poured into old bottles, when the reality is that the Chinese texts they are comparing are missing some points while containing a vast majority of the common points. However these Chinese texts were likely preserved presumably by heritical sects described in the Kathavatthu. Not only that, they were translated from Pali to Sanskrit which was prohibited. After that, it was translated from Sanskrit to Chinese. After that, there was English. Can’t we just be a little doubtful about who perserved it and how many times it was translated? There is a term for this, ironically called “Chinese Whispers”.

Generally speaking, those who “make up their own dhamma” often reject the commentaries and abhidhamma. It ruins “artistic freedom” from interpretations of the suttas which are “general frameworks” to be memorized. I’m not so sure why they are taken to be complete. Even the suttanta folks have to sift through different suttas to give explanations while staying pure to the mula texts. However, each sutta itself was its own lesson or complete discourse. It was the commentaries and abhidhamma that were taught each time, for each sutta (in some general sense).

Another problem is vinaya. The commentary closes many loopholes, especially with money. It makes life difficult for monks. I have had one suttanta monk tell me that as long as they start eating before Solar Noon it is fine. Then they can eat as long as they want until they get up. He is a strict Suttanta monk.

Lastly, Sautrāntika is not new. It is old. There is just another wave passing through, sort of like Ice ages and climate change. It just happens.

One more thing. It is a myth among the Suttanta folks that those who believe in classical Theravada do not read or study the suttas themselves. This is far from the reality as Suttas are always regarded as the “King” of Dhamma. I like to view the commentaries and abhidhamma more like the footnotes on dhamma. If you are familiar with any type of Buddhist or non-Buddhist material you read, you should be able to “guess” what the footnotes contain.

2 Likes

Given the density of his writings it’s somewhat ironic that Bhante wrote a book called “Clearing the Path”

Based on my familiarity with the catalogs of the more recent text-critical EBT genre authors, I estimate that the Dhamma will remain as an institutional religion with any real presence for a few more generations, at best (this is in contrast to the Dhamma having been preserved thus far since the Buddha began teaching it over 2,500 years ago — and remember that the school that maintained the Abhidhamma and Commentaries, the Theravāda, is the only complete school that has survived until modern times). The Dhamma simply will not survive contact with Western civilization. It is pretty simple as the influence of these ideas will quickly become ubiquitous. I spoke about this a little bit here. Paradoxically, if Western civilization collapses, the Dhamma has a much greater chance of survival.

Renaldo

1 Like

The Dhamma could not even survive in the Indian culture, where it originated, due to the samaṇa movements of the Buddha’s time eventually being influenced by other philosophical, yogic, and theistic traditions, and sometimes even receiving direct opposition from those other cultural influences. It only survived for millennia in Southeast Asian culture which itself was greatly influenced and shaped by Buddhism, and where Buddhist rulers actively cultivated the ubiety of the Theravāda, with no small effort, over centuries.

Remember that the Abhidhamma and Commentaries are like a protective coating that keep out wrong views and practices and resist the influence of other philosophical movements, religious beleifs, etc. Without them the Dhamma beings to change and to be presented differently every single time (just look at all the different schools that arose). And it is also harder for people to gain faith in the Omniscience of the Buddha and the truth and efficacy of his teachings, particularly when every word of the texts is under scrutiny and is seen to have been inserted at a later time. If you think few people gain faith in the Dhamma now, just wait until most teachers and books tell you that they believe the Buddha probably awakened to some extent but that he wasn’t omniscient – that that is just a fairy tail – and so are the suranormal powers, Brahmas, devas appearing, etc. Not only is this kind of Dhamma the equivalent of junk, its ideas carry the stamp of approval of modern academia, which in today’s world represents the highest authority in learning. In this culture, it carries the “royal decree.”

Renaldo

2 Likes

Bhante,

Came across the following in the Commentary to
dhātuvibhaṅgasutta.

buddhānaṃ kira sabbāpi dhammadesanā saṃkhittāva, vitthāradesanā nāma natthi, samantapaṭṭhānakathāpi saṃkhittāyeva

Even the patthana is said to be concise. What need be said of suttas. Sometimes encompassing the whole sāsana in one stanza.

1 Like

It is entirely reasonable to reject texts on such grounds, and this is understandable; in much the same way that other schools might take similar positions. On the other hand, your statement regarding the translation process is incorrect. These texts were never translated from Pāli. Originally, following the Buddha’s passing, different schools retained their own textual recensions in various Prakrit dialects (Middle Indo-Aryan languages, of which Pāli is one).

Does not matter how you “define” Pāḷi . (The Magadha language).
What matters in my statement is that it was translated from a dialect to sanskrit and then to chinese from a heretical sect. So what you are debating is null. The statement claims: It is “lost in translation” from a heretical sect.

Dealing with what Pāli is doesn’t matter — that’s not the core of the issue. The point remains the same, which is that these texts were not translated from Pāli. What we call “Pāli” is part of the (MIA) language family, to which Sanskrit also belongs.