Did the scheme of 31 planes of existence exist prior to the Buddha?
1 Like
Mahayana is largely idealism,
If Theravada Abhidhamma denies the ultimate existence of external world (of chairs and trees, and other non-paramattha things) and merely calls them conceptual (which is a product of the concept producing deluded citta) then in a sense it is Idealism (or almost).
Personally, to me, idealism would really make Abhidhamma easier to accept. Less problems with how kamma & citta can produce all the results and all the incredible "worlds that one can be reborn into (to speak conventionally).
IMHO, a much bigger and fundamental difference between different Abhidhamma teachings is the nature of dhammas. Are they tri-temporal, with momentary manifestation? Or are they momentary only? In latter case it brings lots of potential logical problems and seems to violate the law of conservation of energy. IMHO.
1 Like
Bhante,
-
How is antarabhava different from a spontaneous short term rebirth? Doesn’t this state contain 5 aggregates?
-
What is philosophically/logically wrong with antarabhava assuming that it is anicca, dukkha, anatta?
1 Like
I am not exactly sure what is the exact nature of antarabhava, maybe it’s mind made body? Like NDE people experience?
From the position of EBT, I think there’s no issue, just that classical Theravada doesn’t have this and thus think that it is too close to soul theory, but mind made body is already similar to that, no need to posit a soul.
1 Like
Bhante,
Manomaya kaya is mentioned a number of times in the suttas. In any case, it is made from 5 aggregates.
Exactly.
1 Like
2 posts were split to a new topic: Momentary?
I wonder about this question myself.
Maybe:
-
Abhidhamma is too long and too difficult to understand. Not everyone can or wants to read for 5-7 hours at a time. Short stories with less terminology are easier for some people to read and grasp.
“A confused mind says NO”. -
Over reliance on western materialistic historical analysis.
-
Suttas can be re-interpreted much easier than Abhidhamma to fit the person’s idea of what the teaching is about.
IMHO.
2 Likes
12 posts were merged into an existing topic: Is the Theravada system one of direct realism?
I think a lot of it has to do with how people learn Buddhism in the West nowadays. In Asia and in temples Buddhism is taught in a systematic way to make sure people have the foundation to understand the the more advanced teachings.
I once heard a western Buddhist “expert” make the argument that the heaven/hell realms and rebirth must be “allegorical” since they contradict anatta. As if everyone else was simply misunderstanding Buddhist cosmology as literal, but for some reason it never occurred to her that she was simply misunderstanding anatta to think that would be the case.
It’s like learning calculus and thinking your understanding of calculus proves basic algebra wrong. Of course. If you think algebra is wrong because it contradicts calculus. It’s much more likely you are simply misunderstanding calculus than everyone else got algebra wrong. In fact to check if u understand calculus, you cross check that it follows the rules of algebra properly. But this only works if u learn algebra before calculus and not the other way around.
In Asia and in pre modern times. Rebirth and cosmology is usually ingrained before they learn about anatta. So they never make such an assumption. They have the foundation first to understand anatta correctly so as to not misconstrue it as a contradiction of rebirth.
In the modern West. People find Buddhism thru books and stuff and find it intellectually stimulating and profound. But since they learn things in an arbitrary order they misunderstand some concepts and come to faulty conclusions. Another issue is modern western culture has a tradition of massively reinterpreting religious texts like the Bible and Quran to reconcile some of the barbaric passages with modern values and this probably bled thru when Buddhism became more prominent in the West.
Combine the illogical order they learn buddhism with the fact that westerners don’t have a culture of respect like in Asia, this is a recipe for distortion. Bowing seems superfluous to westerners but it’s actually important to lower your ego so u can learn from ur teacher fully. If u don’t have respect for ur teacher your more likely to pick and choose what they teach you to fit your existing preconceptions.
Since the Buddhas teachings are so deep and profound. It appeals to the western intellectual types. Since they like it they can’t say it’s wrong. But since they learn things in an illogical order and western culture has this tradition of reinterpreting the barbarian stuff in the old testament, this causes them to pick and choose the texts they understand in the name of validity and aggressively reinterpret some texts.
1 Like
Rather interesting video about how intelligent people are actually more prone to bias than normal or less intelligent ppl due to their capacity to rationalize up their own facts to fit their preexisting opinions.
I think this phenomen absolutely played a role in the rise of the dvi-pitaka-vada in western intellectual circles. Due to parts of the ancient texts not mixing well with their established viewpoints based on modern 1960s on western science/values.
Also why humility is often associated with wisdom (as opposed to intelligence) in Buddhism.
1 Like
I think the video had nothing to do with CT.
I perceive that which thou dost allude to as rather trifling, particularly when one doth consider the interpretation of that which is deemed “early.” And, in a manner most ideal, it is founded upon a false premise, as though all individuals shared a singular and unified understanding thereof, and the intellectual framework for understanding these texts of the EBTians were cohesive. In truth, each person doth interpret these matters according to their own inclinations. Therefore, to approach the matter with greater objectivity, it would be more fitting to term it as: how Sujato’s early Buddhism doth differs from Theravāda.
There are, as well, “suttas/sūtras” which find no counterpart within the four Nikāyas and their parallels, thus rendering the comparative approach, at times, ineffectual. Moreover, the Abhidhammic doctrinal framework may indeed vary between these two traditions, within the seven books of each school. Nevertheless, I assert that thou shouldst deepen thy understanding regarding the attribution of this literature to the founder, along with the affirmations of each school. For a pivotal insight will present itself unto thee, one which may elucidate the very cause of the differences observed.
I do not make any reference to affirmations on my part here, yet the objectivity of the examination must, likewise, remain non-selectively normative. At the very least, it is still considered ‘early’ and should be approached with careful, unbiased consideration, devoid of any preconceived biases.