Talk:Abhidhamma Piṭaka

message: ===1===
This seems to have been resolved for now. Peter jackson (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: NPOV dispute

message: This seems to have been resolved for now. Peter jackson (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 1

message: #Statement of the view given in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism (whoever wrote it) as fact violates neutrality
#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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: 2

message: OK, I'll tag the individual statements instead. You should have done that yourself when you deleted the section tag.
#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)
replies: text: That was exactly what I did, but you reverted. Peter jackson (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  link organization under 'Contents' 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Anachronistic error? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyright Infringement? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Origins is incorrect