Doctrinal disputes and the evolution of Abhidhamma schools (Lectured by ven. Ilukewela Dhammarathana)
LISTEN >>>
B.P.G 301 Lectured by ven. Ilukewela Dhammarathana (recorded by Mon monk Nai Suriya) 10th of February, 2011
LISTEN >>>
B.P.G 301 Lectured by ven. Ilukewela Dhammarathana (recorded by Mon monk Nai Suriya) 24th of February, 2011
Doctrinal disputes and the evolution of Abhidhamma schools 1
(lectured by ven. Dhammaratana) 10th of February, 2011
The Buddha delivered His sermons on different occasions for different individuals, depending on the relevant doctrine (topic). Because of this nature of preaching the Dhamma, there are differences among the doctrines divulged (revealed) by the Buddha. The best example adduced for this is the incident that happened between Pañcakaṅga Upāsaka and ven. Udāyi. This story is mentioned in Bahuvedanīya Sutta (Majjhima Nikāya). The two people were disputing regarding the explanation given by the Buddha with regard to kinds of feelings (vedanā). According to the Dhamma learned by Pañcakaṅga, there are only two kinds of feelings. However, ven. Udāyi has heard that there are three kinds of feelings. Therefore, the two people in the Sutta adhered to two different views with regard to kinds of feelings. Finally, these two people went to meet the Buddha and asked which view was correct. The answer given by the Buddha was: “I preached the Dhamma considering the individual.
When we consider Sutta Piṭaka, we can find out some terms which have different interpretations. The best example for this is citta, mano and viññāṇa. On some occasions, we can see some similarities among these words. In some other places we can see the different interpretations of these terms.
The later Abhidhammic scholars found out that there are two kinds of discourses delivered by the Buddha. One is nītattha desanā and other is neyyattha desanā. Later these two sources of discourses were developed as sammutti desanā and paramattha desanā.
According to the facts mentioned above, we can believe that emergence of disputes with regard to the Dhamma is natural. As an example for the development of different Buddhist schools holding different views the statement made by ven. Sāti can be highlighted. In Mahā Taṇhā Saṃkhaya Sutta, the statement made by ven. Sāti is given:
“The same consciousness transmigrate from life to life.” That incident can be considered as an occasion for reasonable development of different Abhidhammic schools.
After the demise of the Buddha, there rapidly developed two Buddhist traditions named Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna. With the development of Mahāyāna tradition, they accepted that the essence of Buddhism is the Paṭiccasamuppāda. While with the development of Hīnayāna tradition, they believed that the essence of Buddhism is The Four Noble Truths.
Before the Third Buddhist Council, there were many arguments with regard to the Buddha’s teachings among the disciples. During that time, the monks, who held same/one view, grouped around a noted Thera. This way, before the Third Buddhist Council, there emerged many groups of monks holding different views.
- There were many monks that held similar views – monks of a same view gathered and selected an elder monk (Thera) as a leader of their group, which was specific by the particular view which was shared by the members of the group.
It was a reason to hold the Third Buddhist Council. According to Theravāda tradition, it is accepted that the Third Buddhist Council was able to purify the Buddha’s teaching, having defeated all the heretical views. However, other Hīnayāna traditions do not accept that. They stated that Theravāda monks were not able to defeat them. That way we could stay without changing our view. Nevertheless, other Hīnayāna schools, such as Puggalavāda, Sarvāstivāda, Sautrāntika etc. remained without making any difference. They were able to hold their own view. The reason for their survival is that they were able to prove their view by quoting the Buddha’s teaching.
Doctrinal disputes and the evolution of Abhidhamma schools 1 (lectured by ven. Dhammaratana) 10th of February, 2011
The Buddha delivered His sermons on different occasions for different individuals, depending on the relevant doctrine (topic). Because of this nature of preaching the Dhamma, there are differences among the doctrines divulged (revealed) by the Buddha. The best example adduced for this is the incident that happened between Pañcakaṅga Upāsaka and ven. Udāyi. This story is mentioned in Bahuvedanīya Sutta (Majjhima Nikāya). The two people were disputing regarding the explanation given by the Buddha with regard to kinds of feelings (vedanā). According to the Dhamma learned by Pañcakaṅga, there are only two kinds of feelings. However, ven. Udāyi has heard that there are three kinds of feelings. Therefore, the two people in the Sutta adhered to two different views with regard to kinds of feelings. Finally, these two people went to meet the Buddha and asked which view was correct. The answer given by the Buddha was: “I preached the Dhamma considering the individual.
When we consider Sutta Piṭaka, we can find out some terms which have different interpretations. The best example for this is citta, mano and viññāṇa. On some occasions, we can see some similarities among these words. In some other places we can see the different interpretations of these terms.
The later Abhidhammic scholars found out that there are two kinds of discourses delivered by the Buddha. One is nītattha desanā and other is neyyattha desanā. Later these two sources of discourses were developed as sammutti desanā and paramattha desanā.
According to the facts mentioned above, we can believe that emergence of disputes with regard to the Dhamma is natural. As an example for the development of different Buddhist schools holding different views the statement made by ven. Sāti can be highlighted. In Mahā Taṇhā Saṃkhaya Sutta, the statement made by ven. Sāti is given:
“The same consciousness transmigrate from life to life.” That incident can be considered as an occasion for reasonable development of different Abhidhammic schools.
After the demise of the Buddha, there rapidly developed two Buddhist traditions named Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna. With the development of Mahāyāna tradition, they accepted that the essence of Buddhism is the Paṭiccasamuppāda. While with the development of Hīnayāna tradition, they believed that the essence of Buddhism is The Four Noble Truths.
Before the Third Buddhist Council, there were many arguments with regard to the Buddha’s teachings among the disciples. During that time, the monks, who held same/one view, grouped around a noted Thera. This way, before the Third Buddhist Council, there emerged many groups of monks holding different views.
- There were many monks that held similar views – monks of a same view gathered and selected an elder monk (Thera) as a leader of their group, which was specific by the particular view which was shared by the members of the group.
It was a reason to hold the Third Buddhist Council. According to Theravāda tradition, it is accepted that the Third Buddhist Council was able to purify the Buddha’s teaching, having defeated all the heretical views. However, other Hīnayāna traditions do not accept that. They stated that Theravāda monks were not able to defeat them. That way we could stay without changing our view. Nevertheless, other Hīnayāna schools, such as Puggalavāda, Sarvāstivāda, Sautrāntika etc. remained without making any difference. They were able to hold their own view. The reason for their survival is that they were able to prove their view by quoting the Buddha’s teaching.
Doctrinal disputes and the evolution of Abhidhamma schools 2
(lectured by ven. Dhammaratana) 24th of February, 2011
- In
Parinibbāna
Sutta is mentioned, that ven.
Ānanda
asked who would be the teacher of Bhikkhus
and
leader of the Sāsana
after the Buddha's
Parinibbāna,
because at that time usually after the death of the religious leader
there are problems among the followers. The
Buddha
said that it is Dhamma
that should be the teacher.
- Satta
aparihāna
dhamma –
monks should appreciate and respect their elders – therefore, in
one place the
Buddha
claims that it is
Dhamma
that is the teacher, but in other place it is mentioned that the
elders should be accepted.
- “Buddhist Sects in India” by Nalinaksha Dutt -
In the Buddha's Dispensation (Buddha-Sāsana) there are raised questions with regard to the leader after the demise of the Buddha. Seeing the incident happened in the order/church of Nigaṇṭha Nāthaputta ven. Ānanda approached the Buddha and asked “Who is going to be our teacher after your departure?” Answering the question the Buddha mentioned/stated “Dhamma would be your teacher.” However, in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta the Buddha had told His disciples that as long as the monks adhere to practices, such as listening and being respectful to the senior monks etc. the Sangha would thrive and not decline. Therefore, it is clear that the Buddha has appreciated the seniority. It is factual, when it is considered along the Buddhist Councils.
- In
Mahāparinibbāna
Sutta are
mentioned “four mahāpadesa”
- Buddhāpadesa,
Saṅghāpadesa,
Therāpadesa
and Ekatherāpadesa.
One would come to monks and say he has heard this and that teaching
from the Buddha,
from Sangha, from
a group of learned of monks or from one learned monk. It should not
be immediately refused – it should be compared and contrasted with
the core teaching of the
Buddha
and if it agrees, it should be accepted, if it doesn't agree, it
should be rejected.
- Sometimes
we try to understand the
Buddha's
teaching according to our earlier experiences. When we see something
new, we try to understand it according to our previous knowledge -
“Have I seen this earlier? Or not?” And we try to understand it
as the thing which we have seen/cognized earlier. For instance, we
see a person with a red colored robe, while the person is far we
think it is a monk. But as soon as the person approaches us, we see
that the person has long hair, thus we understand that it is a woman
and cannot be a monk (heh, but it can be a nun :-) ). Thus in the
beginning, we may be wrong. We should understand the Dhamma
according to our own experience and not according to an
interpretation. During various Buddhist Councils there were various
disputes. At the Third Buddhist Councils heretical views were
attempted to be rejected.
»Sutte osāretabbāni vinaye sandassetabbāni.«
(What we hear/know should be compared with the Dhamma and contrasted with the Vinaya.)
(Dīgha Nikāya – 3. Mahāparinibbāna Sutta - Catumahāpadesakathā)
Accordingly, we can recognize what would be the Buddha's teaching if is in accordance with Dhamma and Vinaya. Considering this as an opportunity the later Buddhist monks began to interpret the Buddha's teaching as they wished. It was a reason for the development of different Buddhist sects.
- Monks gave interpretation according to their sensory perception – they didn't have extrasensory perception (abhiññā), thus the interpretation was of much lower value. On many occasions the Buddha mentioned “kamma follows you” - thus how can be explained that kamma follows one after death?
- Lalakalāpa Sutta - there is mentioned that we cannot stay without mind or without matter.
- Our
perception may be different from other person. Thus, if someone goes
to moon, his experience will be different from that of our, who
haven't come there. Similar to this is the story of the fish and
frog. Frog can go to the land and watch people, buildings and nature
there, but fish cannot see those things. Thus it went back to water
and tried to tell it to fish. But the fish couldn't understand it
and rejected the fact of existence of it. The
Buddha
taught that one should become an Arahant
to understand the teaching completely, otherwise one cannot
understand.
- Paṭiccasamuppāda – it was described as a wheel or as a line, but the Buddha didn't give any simile for it. Another description would be that each of the parts of Paṭiccasamuppāda are actually circles that are drawn each around the previous one. Thus avijjā would be as an empty circle in the center, around this circle would be a circle of saṅkhārā, around the circle of saṅkhārā would be circle of viññāṇa and around it circle of nāma-rūpa etc.
- There is also distinction between saññā and paññā – while saññā provides mere perception/cognition, paññā provides understanding.
- Mahādukkhakhandha Sutta in Majjhima Nikāya is explaining the dependence of avijjā on other constituents.