The Abhidhamma seems to be often under-appreciated despite its analytical rigour and logical consistency.
In my view, it represents the most authentic Buddhist thought.
Why is Abhidhamma so frequently undervalued?
4 Likes
Hi Paulo. 
My take is that it is because our defilements are so strong, subtle, and unwavering.
R
3 Likes
Do you mean among Western converts? Because in Theravada Buddhist countries it is the main focus of monastic education, often to the exclusion of other things.
4 Likes
Yes, I mean specially Western countries, and perhaps some Mahayanins countries.
Well, I think it is mostly a case of circumstance. There are few teachers who teach Abhidhamma. We don’t even have good, modern, published translations with quality annotations. So without teachers and translations, it’s not reasonable to expect people to appreciate it. Especially because it’s hard to figure out on your own.
Mostly you have Buddhists in the west teaching meditation. A much smaller number are teaching suttas. And a fraction of that are teaching Abhidhamma. Personally I doubt if it is purely demand driven. The vast majority in the west don’t know enough about Abhidhamma to reject it.
1 Like
The Abhidharmakośa was also an important text in Mahāyāna Buddhism. I’m not entirely sure, but as far as I know, it is still being taught in Tibetan Buddhism. However, in Asia, its importance seems to have declined as Zen Buddhism became dominant. I’m not very familiar with the relationship between Abhidhamma and Mahayana. As for Western Buddhism, I’m not so sure—generally, it seems to be regarded as a later teaching. This may also be due to the popularity of EBT. There also seem to be differences in the interpretation of jhāna. Those who support lite jhāna tend to view the Vism negatively, so they probably do not look favorably upon the Abhidhamma either.
You should read over some of the threads in the Authenticity of Texts forum..
The abhidhamma is mentioned by the Buddha in the suttas. It was called “matika” at that time. So, it is incorrect to say the Buddha didn’t teach it.
1 Like
Where do the commentaries claim abhidhamma was taught first?
Even they had to have a fabulous origin story. Whereas the suttas are all taught to people whom the Buddha met or to Devas who visited him like in Mangala sutta.
That is the critical place at which Abhidhamma falls apart in history.
If it mattered so much then why would the Mahasatipatthana sutta start with the statement. This is the only way for the purification of beings ….. the 4 foundations of mindfulness. Etc.
I have no doubts about the 4 Noble Truths and Anatta Lakhana sutta being from the Buddha and I see no reason to have to include Abhidhamma in Dhamma that I have gone to refuge too.
It is fine if others like it. But I just don’t think it has enough evidence in the Suttas to make bold statements that it is more important than the 4 foundations of mindfulness and other suttas.
I will have a look as if i haven’t looked at it all for the last 46 years many times.
I never said anything like “the commentaries claim the Abhidhamma was taught first.”
I spoke only of the suttas.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
I am responding only your statement of,
the abhidhamma seems to have not been taught by the Buddha in his lifetime.
See this post for substantiation on why that statement is perhaps misguided.
1 Like
There are both later and older layers within the Abhidhamma. When reading the suttas, there are many things that are not explained in detail. Such things must have been taught in one way or another.
1 Like
Could you please write more about that?
@Paulo Could you please write more about that?
Sure. From another post:
Mātikā
femininea water course Vism.554 (˚âtikkamaka); Mhvs.35, Mhvs.96; Mhvs.37, Mhvs.50; Snp-a.500 (= sobbha); Dhp-a.ii.141 (its purpose: “ito c’ ito ca udakaṁ haritvā attano sassa-kammaṁ sampādenti”); Vv-a.301
tabulation, register, tabulated summary, condensed contents, esp. of philosophical parts of the Canonical books in the Abhidhamma; used in Vinaya in place of Abhidhamma Piṭaka; probably the original form of that (later) Piṭaka Vin.i.119, Vin.i.337; Vin.ii.8 [cp semantically in similar sense Lat. mātrix = E. matric i.e. register. In BSḳ. mātrikāVen. Ananda said, “There is the case, friend, where a monk masters the Dhamma: dialogues, narratives of mixed prose & verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer sessions. He teaches the Dhamma in detail—as he has heard it, as he has remembered it—to others. He gets others to recite the Dhamma in detail—as they have heard it, as they have remembered it. He holds a group chanting of the Dhamma in detail—as he has heard it, as he has remembered it. He thinks about & evaluates the Dhamma as he has heard it, as he has remembered it; he contemplates it with his intellect. He enters the Rains in monasteries in which there are senior monks who are learned, who know the tradition, who are holders of the Dhamma, the Vinaya, & the Matika.
-AN 6.51
So, the argument that the Abhidhamma strictly was not around nor approved of by the Buddha, and that it is something that came about long after his death and the compiling of the suttas is conclusively false. It was around and was called matika, and accepted by his immediate disciples. Simple as that. Arguments could be made that the existing Abhidhamma patika is an expanded version of the matikas, and that parts of it weren’t around during the Buddha’s time, however the argument that the entire Abhidhamma pitaka is a late, post Buddha invention is destroyed by the mention of the matikas in the suttas (in the above and also at AN 11.17, and per the dictionary entry above it is mentioned in the Vinaya. I’m looking for other mentions, I feel like I read a mention in DN but am having trouble finding it. Will update if I find it).
‘In such-and-such monastery there are several senior mendicants who are very learned, knowledgeable in the scriptures, who have memorized the teachings, the texts on monastic training, and the outlines.
‘amukasmiṁ nāma āvāse sambahulā therā bhikkhū viharanti bahussutā āgatāgamā dhammadharā vinayadharā mātikādharā.-DN 16
“Here, friend Sāriputta, two bhikkhus engage in a talk on the higher Dhamma and they question each other, and each being questioned by the other answers without foundering, and their talk rolls on in accordance with the Dhamma. That kind of bhikkhu could illuminate this Gosinga Sāla-tree Wood.”
"Idhāvuso sāriputta, dve bhikkhū abhidhammakathaṁ kathenti, te aññamaññaṁ pañhaṁ pucchanti, aññamaññassa pañhaṁ puṭṭhā vissajjenti, no ca saṁsādenti, dhammī ca nesaṁ kathā pavattinī hoti.
-MN 32
With the addition of that DN 16 quote, that pretty much sums it up. The abhidhamma is clearly attested in the suttas and vinaya. Any attempts to demonstrate it being strictly a late work are thus invalid, and so are then also invalid any attempts to entirely prove it as being false, or as a totally incorrect understanding of the Buddha’s teaching. In other words, playing the suttas against the abhidhamma to refute the latter is a false dichotomy. The bulk of the abhidhamma is merely a tabulation and outline of the suttas. A tabulation of a larger work cannot be refuted by the larger work itself, such would be illogical.
Might a minority of parts of the abhidhamma be later? Perhaps, but not the majority of it. The majority of the abhidhamma is a tabulation of what is found in the suttas.
That’s what I’ve concluded. Copied from my post on another forum. The importance of the Abhidhamma is that it is equally as important as the suttas, but makes things very stark and clear. The commentaries are extremely imiportant, because they are the only thing preventing people from completely forgetting what the Buddha actually taught, due to charlatans subverting the suttas for the purpose of making them into eternalism/extreme relativism/subjective idealism/extreme nihilism. This can only be done if they throw out the commentaries, because the commentaries were written precisely to make clear how the suttas should be interpreted, almost presciently aware of these very charlatans. Although surely such charlatans were around in their time, as well. Regardless, any sensible, rational person, reading the suttas will come to similar conclusions as the commentaries. But when the suttas are read by an irrational, eternalist, or Mahyanist, they see souls, eternal consciousness, etc. and the commentaries are there to say “nope.”
In other words, while the suttas are already very clear, a lot of people deliberately mess around with them and claim they are eternalist/etc. This is impossible to do with the Visuddhimagga, commentaries, etc., since they are fully drawn out exegesis of the suttas and very, very clear, and address specifically these topics. The suttas couldn’t address these topics, because these misinterpretations of the suttas only happened later, after they were composed. So, thankfully, we have the commentary tradition for exactly this reason.
2 Likes
It is a foundational textbook in Mahayana and in Vajrayana Buddhism. Apparently it “is studied in all the shedras (Tibetan institutes of higher learning of the Dharma)” source
I am not implying that I agree/disagree with all its tenets or approve/disaprove of this or that school of Buddhism,
Right. Playing the “Devil’s advocate”, the difficulty is, which one? This is especially relevant when it comes to commentaries such as: Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣāśāstra, Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam, Abhidharmasamuccaya, Abhidharmāvatāra, Abhidhamma Sangaho…
Note: I do not claim that all of the texts above are totally right or totally wrong. Most of the above aren’t orthodox Māhavihāra.
@citta Right. Playing the “Devil’s advocate”, the difficulty is, which one?
My comment literally just above yours lists quotes and sutta references answering this question.