Is Criticizing Abhidhamma, Or Realness of Suttas Against Vinaya?

Authenticity of Texts
1

The EBT’rs often deny anything outside the four Nikāyas as real (and not everything from that, either). If that blanket rule is followed, then they are even refuting the dhammapada!
In any case, they are criticizing the Dhamma.

pācittiyapāḷi p.189

439. ‘‘yo pana bhikkhu pātimokkhe uddissamāne evaṃ vadeyya – ‘kiṃ panimehi khuddānukhuddakehi sikkhāpadehi uddiṭṭhehi, yāvadeva kukkuccāya vihesāya vilekhāya saṃvattantī’ti, sikkhāpadavivaṇṇake pācittiya’’nti.
439. “If a bhikkhu, while the Pātimokkha is being recited, should say, ‘What good are these minor and lesser training rules when recited? They lead only to remorse, to annoyance, to mental vexation,’ he incurs a pācittiya for disparaging a training rule.”

440. yo panāti yo yādiso…pe… bhikkhūti…pe… ayaṃ imasmiṃ atthe adhippeto bhikkhūti.
440. “Whatever bhikkhu…” means whoever, of whatever kind… (and so on) … “bhikkhu” means… (and so on) … in this context, the bhikkhu referred to is this one.

pātimokkhe uddissamāneti uddisante vā uddisāpente vā sajjhāyaṃ vā karonte.
“While the Pātimokkha is being recited” means while one is reciting, or having it recited, or doing a recitation.

189evaṃ vadeyyāti – ‘‘kiṃ panimehi khuddānukhuddakehi sikkhāpadehi uddiṭṭhehi, yāvadeva kukkuccāya vihesāya vilekhāya saṃvattantīti.
“Should say thus” means, “What good are these minor and lesser training rules when recited? They lead only to remorse, to annoyance, to mental vexation.”

‘‘ye imaṃ pariyāpuṇanti tesaṃ kukkuccaṃ hoti, vihesā hoti, vilekhā hoti, ye imaṃ na pariyāpuṇanti tesaṃ kukkuccaṃ na hoti vihesā na hoti vilekhā na hoti.
“For those who learn this, there is remorse, there is annoyance, there is mental vexation; for those who do not learn this, there is no remorse, no annoyance, no mental vexation.

anuddiṭṭhaṃ idaṃ varaṃ, anuggahitaṃ idaṃ varaṃ, apariyāpuṭaṃ idaṃ varaṃ, adhāritaṃ idaṃ varaṃ, vinayo vā antaradhāyatu, ime vā bhikkhū apakataññuno hontū’’ti upasampannassa vinayaṃ vivaṇṇeti, āpatti pācittiyassa.
It would be better if this were not recited, better if it were not preserved, better if it were not learned, better if it were not memorized, or let the Vinaya disappear, or let these bhikkhus become unskilled.” If he disparages the Vinaya to a fully ordained bhikkhu, he incurs a pācittiya.

441. upasampanne upasampannasaññī vinayaṃ vivaṇṇeti, āpatti pācittiyassa.
If, regarding one who is fully ordained, he perceives him as fully ordained and disparages the Vinaya, he incurs a pācittiya.

upasampanne vematiko vinayaṃ vivaṇṇeti, āpatti pācittiyassa.
If, regarding one who is fully ordained, he is in doubt and disparages the Vinaya, he incurs a pācittiya.

upasampanne anupasampannasaññī vinayaṃ vivaṇṇeti, āpatti pācittiyassa.
If, regarding one who is fully ordained, he perceives him as not fully ordained and disparages the Vinaya, he incurs a pācittiya.

aññaṃ dhammaṃ vivaṇṇeti, āpatti dukkaṭassa.
If he disparages another Dhamma, he incurs a dukkaṭa.

anupasampannassa vinayaṃ vā aññaṃ vā dhammaṃ vivaṇṇeti, āpatti dukkaṭassa.
If he disparages the Vinaya or another Dhamma to one who is not fully ordained, he incurs a dukkaṭa.

anupasampanne upasampannasaññī, āpatti dukkaṭassa.
If, regarding one who is not fully ordained, he perceives him as fully ordained, he incurs a dukkaṭa.

anupasampanne vematiko, āpatti dukkaṭassa.
If, regarding one who is not fully ordained, he is in doubt, he incurs a dukkaṭa.

anupasampanne anupasampannasaññī, āpatti dukkaṭassa.
If, regarding one who is not fully ordained, he perceives him as not fully ordained, he incurs a dukkaṭa.

vinayavinicchayaṭīkā ¶ p.553

1721. tikapācittiyaṃ vuttanti ‘‘upasampanne upasampannasaññī vinayaṃ vivaṇṇeti, āpatti pācittiyassa.
1721. “Tikapācittiyaṃ vuttaṃ” means three pācittiya offenses are stated: “If an ordained person, perceiving an ordained person, disparages the Vinaya, there is an offense of pācittiya.
upasampanne vematiko…pe… anupasampannasaññī…pe… pācittiyassā’’ti (pāci. 441) tīṇi pācittiyāni vuttāni.
If an ordained person, being in doubt… and if an ordained person, perceiving an unordained person… there is an offense of pācittiya” (Pāci. 441).
taṃ vinayaṃ sace pana anupasampannassa santike vivaṇṇeti, tikadukkaṭanti yojanā.
The interpretation is that if one disparages “that” Vinaya in the presence of an unordained person, there is a tikadukkaṭa offense.
1722-4. ubhinnampīti upasampannānaṃ, anupasampannānaṃ ubhinnampi, ‘‘santike’’ti seso.
1722-4. “Ubhinnampi” means “of both” ordained and unordained persons, with “in the presence of” understood.
aññadhammavivaṇṇaneti vinayato aññesaṃ suttābhidhammānaṃ vivaṇṇane.
“Aññadhammavivaṇṇane” means disparaging other teachings, such as the Sutta and Abhidhamma, apart from the Vinaya.

1 Like
2

The majority of them will be Athiests within 10 years. :folded_hands:

R

1 Like
3

And imagine doing that and not even realising it is wrong.

1 Like
4

Most monks disrobe, so your statement is correct.
However, there are now some very senior monks who have survived and continue to spread this. It has grown, and not declined. I think there is an attraction to this due to the human nature of shock value, disagreement and negativity. This is what the “algorithm” of what tends to go viral seeks. It is beyond social media. It applies to any media that has these negative qualities that will become popular. The algorithm just applies this over and over again. That is why it is called an algorithm.

1 Like
5

Indeed, Bhante.

R

1 Like
6

So it doesn’t include house rules? Like monastery rules?

1 Like
7

There are lots of vinaya rules that can come into play that monastery rules are derived from.

  • Complaining about an appointed official.
  • Knowingly bringing up a settled issue.
  • Disrespect

Furthermore, many rules are often derived from vinaya rules, but you might not know them yet. Many monasteries might ignore certain rules, while one monastery you may visit or live in follows a particular rule.

For instance, water or body hairs on finished surfaces may seem like a cultural thing but it is in the rules. The same can be said about covering feet of chairs with cloth.

Or recently the issue of tea and coffee was brought up.
You might find that your whole life you are allowed to eat cheese and then find a monastery that does not allow it (because it is indeed food). This is not a monastery rule. It is vinaya.

In the end, you might indeed find a monastery rule that does not have to do with vinaya. We have to dry our glasses in a certain way. Just do it. It is called living in harmony. You might have a rule about chanting or a schedule to follow. This is very important.

8

That is only an offence at the time of reciting the patimokkha. Context is everything. EBTs are not against vinaya just the distortion of bias to the nature of the abhidhamma blind belief without concrete evidence. These are quite different circumstances and quite a human reaction. For which you show a great degree of intolerance and lack of understanding.

The Dhammapada is a great piece of Dhamma and does it mention abhidhamma???

9

I think you missed the title. Is EBT against Vinaya? Meaning: Is criticizing the Dhamma, commentaries, or Abhidhamma against Vinaya?

Please see the FAQ about intolerance.

10

So you are asking is EBT an offence under vinaya? No it is not.

I think EBT people would accept the vinaya is part of EBT.

I think they would accept the Dhammapada contains Dhamma.

I think you are misreading the vinaya rule out of context.

11

I think they do not accept the commentaries, and they criticize the commentaries too. The same applies to the Abhidhamma.

12

They accept that the commentaries are commentaries don’t they? Why does it matter whether they think it is some infallible word of God type system or not? Opinions are anicca, dukkha and anatta. The commentaries never claimed to be infallible.

13

There are many flavors. Have you ever heard of Ajahn Kukrit? There is a Buddhavacana movement. He was kicked out of the Ajahn Chah monastery system because he did 150 rules Pāṭimokkha. He is an extremist. I changed the title of this thread.

14

Oh humans never cease to amaze me. 150 rules of patimokkha is a funny idea.

Even though you changed the title it is still not an offence to criticise abhidhamma or other things under the rule you quoted.

15

aññaṃ dhammaṃ vivaṇṇeti, āpatti dukkaṭassa.
If he disparages another Dhamma, he incurs a dukkaṭa.

I think that orthodox buddhist would say that this is a dukkaṭa

393. ‘‘yo pana bhikkhu jānaṃ yathādhammaṃ nihatādhikaraṇaṃ punakammāya ukkoṭeyya, pācittiya’’nti.
393. “Should any bhikkhu, knowing a case to be settled according to Dhamma, revive it for a repeated procedure, there is an offense of pācittiya.”

I believe that the entire CST was a legal act. Doubting it is reviving a settled issue.

16

But you forget this rule is "yo pana bhikkhu pātimokkhe uddissamāne evaṃ vadeyya" “whilst the patimokka is being recited” So outside that it is not an offence.

17

Pācittiya Eight: The In-accordance-with-the-Rule Chapter | The Buddhist Monastic Code, Volumes I & II | ebook on dhammatalks.org

The training rule would seem to indicate that these actions are grounds for an offense only while the Pāṭimokkha is being recited or rehearsed, but the non-offense clauses in the Vibhaṅga give no allowance to criticize the discipline at other times, and the K/Commentary follows the Vibhaṅga in not making the recitation of the Pāṭimokkha a necessary factor for the offense here. In other words, the factor of effort here is fulfilled if one criticizes the discipline at any time.

1 Like
18

No it also doesn’t say that it is an offence when the patimokkha is not being recited. The rule is not what you think it is and you have to get to the sub commentary to find the word abhidhamma. Which indicates that if it were what you guys think it is about in the permutations and combinations explanation of the rule in the Vinaya pitaka it would be stated more clearly. So this is a case of you looking for something that doesn’t really exist in the rule. The interesting part in the combinations and permutations is the mention of whether the offender thinks the person they are talking to is ordained or not, which doesn’t matter.

I am of the opinion that you don’t understand the method used in explanation in the vinaya pitaka. The permutations and combinations methods. So this rule is about vinaya rules and used the words “sikkhapada” and “vinaya” and “annam Dhammam”. To read more into it than that is just wishful thinking.

19

BMC is written by Ajhan Thanissaro. Generally speaking, he does not give favorable bias to abhidhamma or commentary. Therefore, what he says stands. You need to understand how dukkaṭas work as well. When you are approaching an offence that takes several steps, it is often a dukkaṭa for each step. I think it has been a long while since you have studied the vinaya.

Lastly, please be careful what you say here. We are an Orthodox Theravāda group which tolerates questions about the commentaries and abhidhamma for the purpose of understanding, but we do not tolerate absolute refutations where one who is “Unorthodox” wants to teach us. We see unorthodox members philosophically as a separate religion, like we would see Christians. There is a difference and it is explained in the FAQ that,

What category on this website can I share about other forms of Buddhism not related to CT?

There is no such category here. Classical Orthodox Theravāda has no such subgroups by design.

What if someone talks bad about my “unorthodox-theravāda” group and I want to defend it?

Classical Orthodox Theravāda is biased and this is not a place for defending unorthodox group. You would not defend negative Buddhist posts inside a separate online Christian group. The same is true here.

There are a lot of other lines that are being crossed here.
Please read the FAQ another time. I have changed nonCT to unorthodox as you stated. But I think you are unorthodox.

1 Like
20

So you have no system for judging who is orthodox or unorthodox. No two people would have the same definition of agree on an exact level. Sure I have not as blind faith orthodox as you but then I am not unorthodox as others. There is a whole spectrum in between. I am a Theravadin buddhist. I am likely in the middle between orthodox and unorthodox. Depends on your definition and scales doesnt it. But really you are an extreme orthodox and i am a middle orthodox. I lived in Burmese monasteries and studied in lots of places. No one ever said I was unorthodox. So I think you are very mistaken. But in the end it does not matter to me who you think I am. I pan for gold amongst whatever people claim is truth. I don’t claim to be correct on everything but I am definitely not a fan of blind faith dogma and appreciate reasoned arguments and tolerance which I don’t see you demonstrating. The method of making decisions is based on the pali first, and everyone knows if the commentary doesnt agree with that is can be rejected. So you always have to show where the pali says an idea first and not bring in the opinions of others that have lesser weight unless they are in agreement. So your statements may not be in accordance with vinaya. Luckily I am not a monk so it does not matter to me.