---

In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Hodge" <s.hodge@...> wrote:

> Robert K wrote:
>
> > The Buddha did not teach the Dhamma for scholars to wrangle over

or

> > as an object of academic interest.
> No, but that has not stopped Buddhist scholars, including

Theravadin ones

> (eg Kathavatthu etc) from engaging in wrangling and polemics for

as far back

> as we can ascertain,

===============
Dear Stephen,
The Kathavatthu of the Tipitaka is an important section of the
Abhidhamma designed to dispel miccha-ditthi (wrong view) and was not
rehearsed for academic interest, nor do I think it is polemic.



------------------
Additionally, regardless of what the Buddha's own intentions were,
all

> aspects of Buddhism that are accessible to scholars are a quite

legitimate

> object of academic interest. Are you suggesting that the Dharma

should be

> placed off-limits to academic study ?

====
I have no interest in trying to run the world at all. As Nina said
different people have different accumulations and there will always
be some who perceive the Dhamma as an academic subject.

==

>

Robert: The Theravada Bhikkhus over the 2600 years of this
Buddhasasana have

> > faithfully preserved the Dhamma for us to learn from. And we

should

> > have the utmost gratitude that they were not swayed to alter it

or

> > add to it.

====================

> How then would you account for the missing portions of the Pali

Vinaya,

> the discrepancies in content between it and the various surviving

canonical

> materials from other schools to which we have access, or the

innovations

> found in the Theravadin Abhidharma which are unknown to any other

school of

> Buddhism ? Regarding the latter, if one looks at the

Sarvastivadin

> Abhidharma, the Sautrantika Abhidharma-kosha, the Yogacarin
> Abhidharma-samuccaya etc, it quickly becomes obvious that the

Theravadin

> Abhidharma is the odd one out -- though that, of course, does not

detract

> from its value. I am not writing this to undermine the faith of

you or

> others in the Dharma but, as a scholar, a Dharma teacher (and an

ex-monk), I

> find the insularity exhibited by the adherents of different forms

of

> Buddhism to be rather sad and divisive since it seems to me to be

akin to a

> form of Buddhism fundamentalism.

==========
I am neither a scholar, a Dhamma teacher or a monk and have never
been any or them so I realise I am probably not fit to discuss this
with you.
All I have is a faith in the Dhamma of the Buddha. And I think any
suggestion of faith will always appear as fundamentalism to another
who does not share that faith. In the Mahaparinnibbana sutta the
Buddha says that: "in this
Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, is found the Noble Eightfold Path;
and in it alone are also found true ascetics of the first, second,
third, and fourth degrees of saintliness. Devoid of true ascetics
are the systems of other teachers".
Possibly if an open-minded Christain joined this group he would read
such a statement and feel slighted; and think such ideas are
closeminded, sad and divisive.
Why do I have faith that when the Buddha spoke this he was not doing
so out of conceit or delusion or trying to promote divisiveness?
Because the Abhidhamma has helped me to see just a tiny bit the
difference between speech motivated by wrongview and speech
motivated by right view. What is the difference between conceit and
saddha-(faith)? They both come with pleasant feeling- and it is only
when we study the difference in the present moment, as is so
stressed in the Abhidhamma, that then it may(sometimes) be detected.


Robert