Talk:Abhidhamma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Abhidhamma, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Chinese Manual of Style - Naming conventions Indic Manual of Style - Naming conventions Japanese Manual of Style Korean Manual of Style - Naming conventions Tibetan Proposed naming conventions

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 About the wording of the first sentence 2 Organization Issues 3 Abhidharmakosa and Bhasya 4 miscellaneous corrections

[edit] About the wording of the first sentence

The current version, per Kukkurovaca: "The abhidhamma is the name of one of the three pitakas, or baskets of tradition, into which the Tipitaka (Pali; Sanskrit: Tripitaka), the canon of early Buddhism, is divided." My understanding is that the term "tripitaka" should be used in reference to any Buddhist canon, whether ancient or modern, Theravada or Mahayana, etc. "Tipitaka", formally, I would suppose, should mean exactly the same thing, but the use of Pali at least strongly implies that one is referring to the Pali Canon. Further, as I understand it, the term "abidhamma" refers specifically to the third section of the Theravada canon (along with, perhaps, some now-extinct, related schools); although other schools have corresponding sections of their canons that go by other names. Therefore, it is not quite accurate to say that the tripitaka is the canon of early Buddhism or that the abidhamma is necessarily a section of it. How about we just say Pali Canon? - Nat Krause 06:56, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, the abhidharma question has far greater extension than just the Theravada school, and while the majority of the schools that wrestled with it are, indeed, now no longer with us, the conflict among them was a powerful motivating factor in the development of Buddhism, including the origination of the Mahayana, so I'm a little worried about creating the impression that the abhidharma is something that happened only in the Pali Canon. In fact, there's a certain case to be made for re-titling this article "abhidharma".... -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 21:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Organization Issues

So I did a fair amount of writing and re-org on the page. I agree overall with Kukkurovaca's assesment. I have a few organizational suggestions that I tried to follow when writing:

1. Re-title this article 'abhidharma'. Right now, it discusses abhidharma in general, and gives an overview of the two complete abhidharma systems available. Any info that applies to all abhidharmic texts and teachings should go here, along with info on texts from incomplete abhidharma traditions that aren't big enough to justify their own page- probably under a 'Other Abhidharmas' heading.
2. Try to consistantly use 'abhidharma' when talking about abhidharma generally, and 'abhidhamma' or 'abhidhamma pitaka' only when talking about the abhidharma of the Theravada school, since they're the only folks around who use Pali.
3. The 'abhidhamma' or 'abhidhamma pitaka' article should eventually be a seperate, more in-depth discussion of the particularities of the Theravada abhidhamma. If anyone cares to expand the coverage of the Sarvastivadin abhidharma (or any particular text), those can take place in their own page. If anyone wants to get picky, 'abhidhamma' should possibly include the commentaries and the various abhidhamma handbooks composed in Pali and the vernacular, general summaries and development, etc., whereas 'abhidhamma pitaka' should primarily be discussing the collection of canonical texts. But I doubt that anyone cares to get picky.

Any thoughts? --Clay Collier 11:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of you say here, and I don't really disagree with any of it. Definitely, in the fullness of time, we should have three (or more) articles dealing with this subject, but, as you say, we don't really have enough material for that yet. My only concern is that I'm uncomfortable with the idea of solidifying the definitions of abhidharma and abhidhamma as something other than synonyms. Certainly, using Pāli strongly implies that one is referring to Theravada sources, and certainly, Sanskrit is usually favoured in English when talking about cross-school Buddhism. However, I'm not sure we should turn that implication into a definition to the extent of having abhidhamma and abhidharma as separate articles with different scopes. Moreover, since the vast majority of contemporary references to abhidhamma/rma are referring to the Theravada version, it might make sense to refer to the general concept as abhidhamma; i.e. to refer to the Theravada abhidhamma and the Sarvastivada abhidharma as two different kinds of abhidhamma. This would mean maintaining the article's current title. Anyways, I'm not sure about this matter, so I'd appreciate input from any other interested parties. - Nat Krause 10:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I think personally we should have distinct articles. Abhidharma Pitaka should explain the various senses in which the term is used, including the Chinese and Tibetan, which I've already put in the Tripitaka article, and give brief details of those different pitakas. It should be linked from there and see-also'd from Vinaya and Sutra Pitakas. Abhidhamma Pitaka should deal exclusively with the Pali, with see-also's to Vinaya and Sutta Pitakas and anything else relevant, including Abhidharma Pitaka. We might also have articles Abhidhamma and possibly Abhidharma. In any case, I think each article should actually be about what its headword says. Peter jackson 11:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abhidharmakosa and Bhasya

of Vasubhandu Does discussion of these texts belong here or in a separate article? The Mahayana Abhidharmasamuccaya? Zero sharp 21:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] miscellaneous corrections

The order of the Abhidhamma books I've put in here is that used in the main printed editions of the Canon and in most other sources. The previous order appears only in a verse in the Sumangalavilasini and in the original plan for the Sinhalese edition of the Canon. This may be to fit the metre or may represent the ancient Dighabhanaka view. The idea that the Abhidhamma was the Buddha's original teaching is not what the tradition says: it says that he thought of it first but didn't teach it first. This whole section is essentially Theravada,as Mahayana obviously doesn't think this (Chinese tradition assigns a similar role to Avatamsaka) and the other schools who may have said this are extinct. Sariputta didn't pass the Abhidhamma on after the Buddha's death as he predeceased him. Peter jackson 15:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

As this is an article about Theravada, Sariputta should appear in the Pali form. Peter jackson 11:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The English is Abhidhamma Pitaka, at least on the system I'm using: I left a note on a talk page (Pali Canon?) about the inconsistencies turned up by Google search to find commonest forms, but nobody had anything to say so I just adopted a reasonably consistent system that doesn't diverge too often from common usage. The Pali is abhidhammapiṭaka, all one word. One could use hyphens, but not consistently, especially in Sanskrit. The form that has been put into the article is a hybrid between English and Pali, which I don't think is a good idea. Peter jackson 15:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)