Hi Stephen and all,

> The original division as
>mentioned in the suttas and vinaya is simply that: the suttas and the
>vinaya. There is no mention of the Abhidhamma in the sense it is being used
>in this discussion. It is for this reason that some perspicacious
>commentators seek to include in in the Khuddka-nikaya.

What you mention would seem to correspond to the twofold division
Dhamma/Vinaya in the list Jim extracted from a commentary.

I noticed when looking in the Mahaavamsa's account of the First
Council that only the Vinaya and Dhamma were mentioned, not the
Abhidhamma. Upali recited the Vinaya and answered questions, while
Ananda did the same for the Dhamma.

I see your point that if one puts the Abhidhamma into the
Khuddakanikaaya, then it can be considered part of the 'Dhamma' (or
sutta-literature), and thus be included in Ananda's recitation.

But to do that by means of the 5-fold nikaaya classification, as
cited by Suan, still leads to a problem. In that classification, the
Vinaya itself is ALSO part of a nikaaya, which defeats the purpose of
the 2-fold division being used. There are nesting problems: tangled
branches in the classificatory tree.

So conflating the 5-fold nikaaya classification with the 2-fold
Dhamma-vinaya classification leads to contradictions just as surely
as conflating it with the 3-fold pi.taka classification does.

I have to say, at first glance the inclusion of Abhidhamma in the
sutta collections appears like a later attempt to deal with apparent
contradictions in the texts, and make the Abhidhamma appear as
Buddhavacana. The legend that the Buddha preached the Abhidhamma in
heaven appears similar. Since a philosophical school needs to be able
to stand up in debate, and opponents will naturally seek out
contradictions, monks would be forced to develop counters to those
objections. The Milindapañha is a good example of that sort of
literature, and the commentaries do so as well.

Personally, I don't mind if the original scriptures are
self-contradictory at points, because I don't demand 100%
consistency. I mainly seek inspiration and guidance (apart from
enjoying the language and literature for its own sake). But in a
tough debating climate, I can understand why some would see the need
to iron out those small contradictions.

best regards,

/Rett