Talk:Abhidhamma Piṭaka

NPOV dispute

1

This seems to have been resolved for now. Peter jackson (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The statement quoted from a tertiary source has no clear meaning & is liable to be misunderstood by readers. Peter jackson (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the following is misleading:

"The earliest books of the Pali Canon, however, do not mention the texts of the Abhidhamma Pitaka at all, and they are also not mentioned at the report of the First Buddhist Council, directly after the death of the Buddha."

It's obviously true that the earliest books don't mention the texts of the Abhidhamma, because, being the earliest books, they naturally have no earlier texts they could mention. The statement about the Council is also misleading, because that account mentions Vinaya & Dhamma, not Sutta.

What I think this section should do is, as with other classical religious texts,

1. note briefly the traditional position
2. give details of scholarly opinion

In this case the traditional position is given in the Canon itself. Peter jackson (talk) 09:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have changed it.03:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Also: which early book of the Pali CAnon mentions the abhidhamma works? None. The parivara is very late, even later than Abhidhamma, and doesn't count as an early work. And where in the the report of the firt council are the abhidhamma works mentioned? nowhere.

Peter, I think you personally have a liking for Abhidhammist philosophy, don't you? just a question. Greetings, Sacca 04:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

2

1. Statement of the view given in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism (whoever wrote it) as fact violates neutrality
2. statement as fact that the Mahasanghikas didn't recognize abhidhamma violates neutrality (Faxian says he obtained a copy of the Mahasanghika Abhidhamma Pitaka)

Peter jackson (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You ar a bit crazy peter... If you think something is wrong correct it. Don't be so lazy Greetings, Sacca 15:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Whenever I corect things you revert my corrections, so I then go to dispute procedure. Peter jackson (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would I revert if it is properly referenced and balanced? Write your stuff, respectful of both sides of the story and you will be fine. If not, I will indeed correct you. Sorry that's the way it goes. Greetings, Sacca 09:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC

Since Sacca seems to have nothing useful to say, but simply reverses the truth as I see it, I'm taking this to RfC. The discussion, such as it is, is in the subsection above. Peter jackson (talk) 10:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That does seem to be your problem, that your truth is not universal, isn't it? This means you can't have it all your own way. Scholars have different opinions. And I totally support you let's go to rfc! But it's a very minor point and Peter didn't even try to make a change to the page concerning these minor points! But anyway since he really wants to do this... I do think Peter is an Theravadin Abhidhamma follower/devotee, and therefore he is very disturbed by some of the issues mentioned on this page. Greetings, Sacca 13:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Peter didn't even try to make a change to the page concerning these minor points!" That's blatantly false, as anyone can see by looking @ the history. I made the changes, you reverted them, I tagged the article & attempted to start a discussion here, but you seem totally unwilling to take part in it, so I go to RfC, which, as I understand it, is what I'm supposed to do in such circumstances. If I'm mistaken about that, if eg I'm supposed to report you to admin or whatever, then no doubt someone will inform me. Peter jackson (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Where? Just make the link for all of us to quickly see your edits concerning these two points. If you don't, it means you can't because you didn't... explanation: If you don't (make this link), it means you can't (make this link) because you didn't (make any edits concerning these 2 points)... understand? Greetings, Sacca 02:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at your beck & call. I've found from experience that creating diffs is a very tedious process. In this case all anyone need do is examine the last few edits to the article. Peter jackson (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

However, i happen to have a bit of time, so here's my edit: [1]

Peter jackson (talk) 10:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

& here's your revert: [2]

Peter jackson (talk) 10:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You then changed the 3rd point, using a wording that's probably OK, leaving the 2 points mentioned above. Peter jackson (talk) 10:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's Great. The reason I reverted the line on the Macmillan encyclopedia because it's just a collection of articles on Buddhism by various people, who disagree with eachother. It is not an encyclopedia as such.

The following numbered comments are by Spasemunki. Sacca's interpolated replies have obscured that. Peter jackson (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

1) Peter's version regarding the encyclopedia article is preferable; better to state the origin of the statement, rather than just stating as fact one theory. It can probably be phrased better, but since theories of the origin of the pitaka are being discussed, the best NPOV option is to present them all with attribution to the people who endorse them. If MacMillan (or some other document) is a good candidate to represent the scholastic consensus, it would be acceptable to replace to say something like "many scholars", "most scholars", etc.

That's Great. The reason I reverted the line on the Macmillan encyclopedia because it's just a collection of articles on Buddhism by various people, and the articles disagree with each other. It is not an encyclopedia as such, and trying to give a statement authority by mentioning that it's from MacMillan encyclopedia on Buddhism, is misleading. Greetings, Sacca 13:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So giving it even more authority by simply stating it as fact is even more misleading. Peter jackson (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

2) re: Mahasanghika acceptance- "some scholars" without a reference is slightly weasel wordy, but the real problem here is that we have no reference for the mahasanghika rejection. My recommendation would be to either source the statement or delete it, in line with the verification guidelines.

We do have a reference for absence of Abhidhamma in the Mahasanghika: Encyclopedia Britannica 2008. I made it a bit clearer by giving it its own reference-number. Greetings, Sacca 13:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this one is definitely cleared up now, with various newly added references.Greetings, Sacca 14:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Routledge Encyclopedia of Buddhism, page 485, says Mahasanghikas had their own abhidharma. Peter jackson (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You are probably just misrepresenting the quote, as you did with the quote from the parivara (Book of the Discipline, volume VI, page 123) that I had to seriously restate just last week. link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abhidhamma_Pitaka&diff=237301618&oldid=237029811

So I don't trust you any more Peter. You twist and turn your quotes around. Greetings, Sacca 10:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In what way did I misrepresent that quote? You added information to contextualize it, which I have no objection to, but your repeated deletions of the information were totally unjustified.

I believe there's a procedure for checking disputed refs. I'll see if I can find it. Peter jackson (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently inactive now. Peter jackson (talk) 11:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The vague statement 'the scriptures themselves', and then mentioning a translation of the Parivara without saying that it actually is the Parivara. The Parivara is a very late addition to the canon. As if anybody takes the Parivara seriously as one of 'the scriptures themselves', putting it on a par with the rest of the Vinaya Pitaka? Bullshit Peter and you know it. We have to be very careful with Abhidhamma devotees like yourself, for your additions to this article are obviously and consistently biased.

Yes you did do this Peter, and in the process secretly deleted a reference to Encyclopedia Britannica too! See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abhidhamma_Pitaka&diff=prev&oldid=237029811 Greetings, Sacca 04:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

1. I don't see the problem with the Parivara. Everyone agrees it's part of the PaliCanon, so the statement was perfectly correct. I have no objection to your contextualization, as I said above. What I object to there was your repeated deletion of the fact, instead of doing what you eventually did, including it with the context you wanted. I ststed above the reason for including it: it is, or should be, standard practice with religious texts to give the traditional/fundamentalist view(s), & it would be perverse to mention the traditionalview without mentioning that it's given in the scriptures themselves.
2. If you bother to read that diff,you'll see there was nothing secret. The edit summaryclearly states a deletion was made, & why.

Peter jackson (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

3) What we need here is a reference from a third party saying either the lack of mention in the early texts & 1st council is evidence of absence, or that the lack of mention is not necessarily evidence of absence. Just looking at the primary source- the council proceedings and suttas- and pulling out what appears to be or not be mentioned is straying into original research territory. I would recommend finding a source that explains the significance (or lack thereof) of the lack of reference as evidence for a late origin for the AP, or remove the entire bit. Deriving evidence of canonical chronology from the canon is a tricky business; it may be possible to state that one source preceded another from references or quoted text, but in general absence of evidence can't be construed as evidence of absence. Much better to find a published source that has some information on the analysis of this specific topic than to wade into it as original research. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I will look nto this. be right back... Thanks spasemunky!Greetings, Sacca 13:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Now this issue is also cleared up with great references. Greetings, Sacca 16:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

All looks a bit much like arguing a case. See WP:SYN. Peter jackson (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's all you can say after your blatant untruth of "the first buddhist council doesn't mention the suttas" has been exposed for the lie that it is? Typical peter. again. Greetings, Sacca 10:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The account of the Council mentions vinaya & dhamma, not sutta, as you yourself correctly state in your current version of the article. So who's lying? Peter jackson (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not your current version, your 1st 23rd Sept version. Peter jackson (talk) 10:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Source cited doesn't mention Sutta Pitaka. That's just your interpretation. & no doubt that of many scholars. Nevertheless, the earliest explanations of the nikayas are in the commentaries, which give 2 meanings: 1 of them is as a division of the whole canon, not just the Sutta Pitaka.

The point is that all this looks like an argument to try to prove something, which is liable to count as OR, & is unnecessary anyway as the broad conclusions of scholars on this question are not in dispute. It is agreed by everyone that most, if not all, the Abhidhamma Pitaka is later than the Buddha. Peter jackson (talk) 10:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

So, if you believe everyone is in agreement on this, why do you make such a problem over it? Why are you trying to establish the contrary with your misleading quotation of the Parivara? And with your attempts to negate so many sources that say that here were actually several early buddhist schools that believed that the Abhidhamma is not from the Buddha but from later disciples? Greetings, Sacca 06:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't tried to negate that. I've only objected to the mention of Mahasanghika. The REB agrees with MEB that some schools had no abhidharma.

Your unilateral deletion of the dispute tag is unjustified & contrary to WP procedure. I'm now asking WP:EA how to proceed. Peter jackson (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

These tags serve a purpose. The section is greatly improved with good references and you don't seem to disagree on substantial content, just the usual mumbling and grumbling, so the tag can disappear now. Greetings, Sacca 13:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed

OK, I'll tag the individual statements instead. You should have done that yourself when you deleted the section tag.

1. The 1st we've discussed before in Talk:Pali Canon#Abhidhamma. The point is how this statement relates to Cousins' view given in Abhidhamma Pitaka#Nature of Abhidhamma. My view is that these scholars would likely disagree with each other's statements. I'd say we should adopt the precautionary principle. Remember that verifiability & NOR require that any reasoanbly intelligent reader can see that the source does indeed say what the article says it says. Similarly here, I'd say that, unless any reasonbly intelligent reader would judge the statements compatible, they should be treated as POVS, not facts (which you haven't doene anyway; you've treated 1 as a fact but left the other as a POV.

I think they would not necessarily disagree with eachother. Based on and started as some sort of commentaries/elaborations to the suttas, the Abhidhamma traditions developed their own viewpoints later on (looking at things in terms of occasions or events instead of sequences or processes). Seems plausible to me. Why would they disagree?

In this case, just say "scholars say... Abhidhamma started out as elaboration of the suttas" and then mention some of these scholars in the references.Greetings, Sacca 12:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That was exactly what I did, but you reverted. Peter jackson (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

1. For the 2nd statement I've given a citation contradicting it in #RfC.

Is the citation about FaXian or any other of these chinese travellers? If so, their statements on Mahasanghika abhidhamma seem not to be taken literally by scholars. I read his writing on this subject and he just seems to speak mythologically about the origin of the Mahasanghika Tripitaka, in rather vague terms, or else the mahasanghika had by that time (700 years after its founding) changed its original stance on Abhidhamma.Greetings, Sacca 12:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't mention him, or otherwise specify the reasons for its statement. Faxian says he obtained a copy of the Mahasanghika Abhidharma, hardly mythology. Peter jackson (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Peter jackson (talk) 09:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. This is great. We can talk about issues instead. Greetings, Sacca 12:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Gethin, Sayings of the Buddha, Oxford University Press, 2008, page xix, says it seems each school in principle had its own abhidharma. While not positively denying that there were any that didn't, this clearly brings into question the factual status of the statement. Peter jackson (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I only just noticed your interpolated replies above. Peter jackson (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

link organization under 'Contents'

good article. shouldn't the links at the beginning of the 'Contents' section be put under each individual section book with the typical "main article here: [then the link]"? makeswell 23:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs)

Anachronistic error?

"the Pali version of the Abhidhamma is a strictly Theravada collection" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhidhamma_Pitaka#Origins seems to do violence to the Sarvastivada existence of these sutras. I am possibly going to revert my own edit, which is deletion of the above quoted language, pending clarification on this point,and, if I don't, I wouldn't argue with anyone who did so.But it seems to me that may very well be a Pali Abhidhamma which is not "strictly" Theravada, per se. Wasn't there a Pali variant available to the Mahasanghika school, even though they obviously preferred Sanskrit many of them were probably better scholars of Pali than anyone around today. Granted, they may not have taken it as Canon, but the sutras were there for them to love or hate.

Maybe it is my undergraduate training in History which is warping my point of view, but it seems that the editors' citation, an Orientalist encyclopedia, does not clearly establish that this framing is appropriate.Geofferybard (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC) 20:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement?

Separate issue - the paragraph I am disputing above appears to be lifted, partly word for word, from http://books.google.com/books?id=ZP_f9icf2roC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=Abhidhamma+Pitaka+of+the+Sarvastivada+Pali&source=bl&ots=CGN8I6yTw6&sig=lPyXiYyUvFnSkYZBQHQRTO4dpdc&hl=en&ei=LSK7Te_vH5nUsAP107Vl&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Abhidhamma%20Pitaka%20of%20the%20Sarvastivada%20Pali&f=false

I'm aware of WP:whatever, and I would like to be nice, but there really is no especially nice way to break the bad news. Please at least rephrase "the Abhidhamma Pitaka has had a checkered history. It was not accepted as canonical by the Mahasanghika school[dubious – discuss][1][9" and cite, or delete it. And "checkered history" is a piece of American slang more suitable to noir detective fiction than to discussions of Buddhist scripture. is it not? Geofferybard (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Origins is incorrect

According to the Lalitavistara Sutra, Shakyamuni Buddha remained in meditative equipoise for a week until a host of gods convinced him to tell others how to become enlightened as he did. He first related his experience to his former meditation companions, with whom he practiced austerity for six years, the First Turning of the Wheel, after he blessed them as monks. All of Buddha's sermons or teachings, each targeting persons of different aptitudes, were memorized by three of his former companions. After his physical death, there was a meeting of his followers where those three attendants recited each of three categories of teachings, the three baskets, the Tripitaka. Ananda recited all of the Wisdom teachings. Before the invention of the written word so sacred to modern scholars, knowledge was passed down through countless generations by rote memorization. To this day, as part of the monastic curriculum, monks spend seven years memorizing sutras and commentaries before analyzing them word by word. His Holiness, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama of the Sovereign Nation Tibet, is a such a Lineage Lama. Lineage lamas memorize teachings learned from prior lineage lamas. Each teaching His Holiness gives is a recitation of one of those teachings for which he is a lineage master. Writing became a popular sport after the sixth century BC, when sutras and commentaries were eventually written down. Scholars are mistaken when they attribute the time of copying a memorized teaching to text as the time that teaching was given. Much of Shakyamuni Buddha's teachings was already known by monks through the memorized Vedas, which contain errors that the Buddha corrected. Again, scholars mistake the time of putting a Veda into writing as the time of its conception, ignoring countless generations of memorization. Diclaimer: It took little effort to learn these facts, I am not a scholar, but I know how to look stuff up. Reference for Ananda's recitation of the Wisdom sutras: https://www.lamayeshe.com/shop/mirror-wisdom, or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pali_Canon. If you want to know about Buddhism, don't ask scholars, ask the Dalai Lama. Hpfeil (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)