I’ve been listening to some of the podcasts that Bhante Subhuti linked in my other post, where he talks about Abhidhamma. While I do find the information interesting to ponder, I still have a question I’d like answered before proceeding with more study.
Firstly, this post is not meant to speculate on the origin or authenticity of the Abhidhamma. I’m moreso curious about the necessity of the information it presents. My question is also around scholastic study in Buddhism in general. For example, the people who were enlightened in the Buddha’s time, they did not have access to all of the written texts, commentaries, Visudhimmahga, and abhidhamma that we have today, but they were still able to reach enlightenment.
This may be a naive question but - if the people back then could reach enlightenment without studying those texts, then why are they a necessary part of the path now?
I also have a question that feels related, and it’s about the general aim in Buddhist practice. Sometimes it seems like the purpose is to be a good person, or sometimes it seems like we’re trying to be peaceful and calm. Other times I get the impression that our aim is to see reality just as it is, and learn to accept that. I know we are trying to end our own suffering, but that goal feels disconnected to things like reading texts and listening to talks.
Whatever the purpose of Buddhist practice is (and maybe it’s more than one thing), how does meditation fit into that? I’ve been meditating for about five years or so now, in multiple ways, but lately feel like I’m spinning my wheels so to speak.
I would appreciate some clarification, and I’d like to see what the orthodox view to these questions would be. Thank you
these days we are at most neyya (mostly padaparama ) and far from the capacities of the great ones at the time of the Buddha. Have a read of this thread:
“Bhikkhus, without directly knowing and fully understanding the all, without developing dispassion towards it and abandoning it, one is incapable of destroying suffering.
“And what, bhikkhus, is that all without directly knowing and fully understanding which, without developing dispassion towards which and abandoning which, one is incapable of destroying suffering?
“Without directly knowing and fully understanding the eye, without developing dispassion towards it and abandoning it, one is incapable of destroying suffering. Without directly knowing and fully understanding forms … eye-consciousness … eye-contact … and whatever feeling arises with eye-contact as condition … without developing dispassion towards it and abandoning it, one is incapable of destroying suffering
Reverend Sāriputta, they speak of this thing called ‘suffering’.What is suffering?”
“Reverend, there are these three forms of suffering.The suffering inherent in painful feeling; the suffering inherent in conditions; and the suffering inherent in perishing.These are the three forms of suffering.”
We can learn to see that there is no self and that dukkha is inherent in each moment, even the most relaxed and pleasant feelings. Seeing this pervasive dukkha paradoxically comes with a special type of calm and energy. Much can be said about this.
Sādhu x 3. Believe it or not, these are very easy abhidhamma talks to listen to without the technical lists people complain about.
Correct. It was an oral tradition from those who directly know and see. Ven. Sāriputta became enlightened from just a half verse. Can you do that? Probably not.
‘‘appaṃ vā bahuṃ vā bhāsassu, atthaṃyeva me brūhi;
Speak little or much, just tell me the meaning; attheneva me attho, kiṃ kāhasi byañjanaṃ bahu’’nti.
My concern is with the meaning, what will many words accomplish?” dhammapariyāyaṃ abhāsi –
Then Venerable Assaji spoke this Dhamma discourse to Sāriputta the wanderer – atha kho āyasmā assaji sāriputtassa paribbājakassa imaṃ dhammā hetuppabhavā, tesaṃ hetuṃ tathāgato āha;
“Of those phenomena that arise from a cause, the Tathāgata has declared the cause; ‘‘ye tesañca yo nirodho, evaṃvādī mahāsamaṇo’’ti.
And their cessation – such is the teaching of the Great Samaṇa.” dhammapariyāyaṃ sutvā virajaṃ vītamalaṃ dhammacakkhuṃ udapādi – ‘‘yaṃ kiñci samudayadhammaṃ, sabbaṃ taṃ nirodhadhamma’’nti.
Then Sāriputta the wanderer, having heard this Dhamma discourse, gained the dust-free, stainless Dhamma-eye: “Whatever is of the nature to arise, all that is of the nature to cease.” atha kho sāriputtassa paribbājakassa imaṃ
However, you can guess there is more. This half verse can be expanded to the whole of the teachings.
What is “whatever”?
What is “nature to arise”?
What is “nature to cease”?
We can expand all of this “whatever” to be mind and matter arising and passing away. It is of nature by way of causes and effects. Through this there are the whole of the 4 noble truths and 8 fold noble path to be seen. We can expand this out very easily.
As I said before, if you know the abhidhamma, then you can look at a random sutta and understand what it is referring to. (at least that much). Those who reject the visuddhimagga and Abhidhamma will sift through countless pages of “Mula Suttas” to try to find definitions, often vague, to define the meaning. So in both cases, one needs elaboration! But the methodology of suttanta requires the reading and in-mind memory of all suttas, whereas general knowledge of Abhidhamma and the vsm, is enough. That is 2 books.
In my talk coming this Sunday on the anattalakkhaṇa sutta, I will speak more in detail on the 5 khandas, six sense doors, and the 11 ways to see these. But it is more than just seeing as it is. It is to try to see the impermanence, suffering and nonself to become disenchanted with it.
