A critical study of the texts of early, medieval and modern Abhidhamma leads us to the conclusion that the origin and development of the Abhidhamma extended over a considerable period of gradual and systematic historical evolution. Reasons of orthodoxy, however, prevented the early Buddhists from cultivating or approving a strictly historical view of this development. The traditional claim, shared alike by the Theravadins and the Sarvāstivādins, ascribed the Abhidhamma, both in regard to its historical origin as well as in regard to its literary form, to the Buddha himself. According to the Abhidharmakośavyākhyā of the Sarvāstivādins, the Buddha himself taught the Abhidharma on a variety of occasions.[1] The Atthasālinī of the Theravadins, which describes the Buddha as the first Ābhidhammika, [2] goes to the length of claiming that the seven treatises of the Abhidhamma Piṭaka were themselves uttered by the Buddha.[3] This text, in an interesting and valuable passage, speaks of a twofold origin of the Abhidhamma.[4] In this connection it answers as many as seventeen questions pertaining to the origin, purpose and continuity of the Abhidhamma. According to these answers, the Abhidhamma was inspired by the earnest aspiration for enlightenment, matured through five hundred and fifty births, realised by the Buddha at the foot of the Bodhi tree, in the month of Vesākha. It was reflected upon by the omniscient Buddha, while he was on the seat of enlightenment, during his week's stay at the Jewelled Mansion. It was taught in heaven, that is, in the realm of the thirty-three gods, for the benefit of the latter, that is, for the purpose of enabling them to get across the four floods of life. It was received by the gods, and is studied by the venerable seekers after perfection as well as by the virtuous worldly folk. It has been mastered by those who have extinguished their depravities, and is held high by those to whom it was meant. It is the word of the Buddha, and has been handed down by the succession of teachers and their pupils. Through Sāriputta it has been successively handed down by Bhaddaji, Sobhita, Piyajāli, Piyadassī, Kosiyaputta, Siggava, Sandeha, Moggaliputta, Visudatta, Dhammiya, Dāsaka, Sonaka, Revata and others up to the time of the Third Council and thereafter by their pupils.[5] Through the traditional succession in India it was brought to the island of Ceylon, that is, by Mahinda, Iṭṭhiya, Uttiya, Sambala and Bhaddasāla and again it was handed down in its new home by their pupils.[6]
This traditional account no doubt contains valuable historical information, specially with reference to its latter part. The orthodox view is, as already mentioned, that the Buddha not merely inspired the later growth of the Abhidhamma but was himself responsible for the literary form which the seven treatises have assumed within the Abhidhamma Piṭaka. There is, however, internal evidence in the Buddhist texts themselves which militates against such a claim. It is very significant, for instance, that there is no reference, even nominal, to the Abhidhamma in what are generally regarded as the earliest authentic texts of early Buddhism such as the Sutta-nipāta and the verse portions of the Jātaka tales. And, as has been mentioned already, even in those places in the Dīgha, Majjhima and Aṅguttara Nikayas where the term Abhidhamma occurs, the reference is not to a literary compilation or composition but to a distinct technique of analysing the Dhamma or to a literary classification based on this technique.[7] There is also a more positive kind of evidence which tends to confirm the critical opinion of modern scholarship in regard to the origin of the Abhidhamma. Buddhaghosa himself records that the ascription of the Abhidhamma to the Buddha had been questioned even in the early days of Buddhism.[8] The monk Tissabhūti of Maṇḍalārāma held the view that the Buddha did not preach the Abhidhamma and cited the Padesavihāra Sutta as supporting him, while, on the other hand, the monk Sumanadeva tried to persuade his listeners about the Buddha's authorship of the Abhidhamma by citing the orthodox tradition.[9] Critics raised the same question at a later date in respect of the Kathāvatthu. Buddhaghosa quotes the Vitaṇḍavādins (probably meaning cynical sophists) as saying that the Kathāvatthu was composed by the older Moggaliputtatissa two hundred and eighteen years after the death of the Buddha, and that, therefore, it ought to be rejected as having been spoken by the disciples.[10] While being constrained to admit the truth of this historical event, Buddhaghosa, however, forestalls the objection by holding that in the case of this book the Buddha had laid down the list of subjects and the appropriate technique for their elucidation on the part of his disciple who was destined to be born over two hundred years after his own death.[11]
It is generally accepted that the Abhidhamma originated and developed out of the Dhamma. The term Dhamma, in its normative aspect, bears the widest meaning and comprehends the entire teaching or doctrine. The Dhamma was taught to composite audiences as and when occasion presented itself to the Buddha, and the language used was largely non-philosophical with a fair admixture of the colloquial. As the understanding of the disciple became deeper the necessity arose for a more precise statement of the nature of reality. The Dhamma was capable of being understood and grasped only by the wise even though it was presented frequently in popular discourse. Hence there were occasions when the doctrine was not well grasped by some disciples even after the Buddha had taught the sermon. On such occasions, as the suttantas themselves record, it was customary for these disciples to betake themselves again either to the Buddha or to one of his initiated disciples, who thereupon undertook a further detailed exposition of the knotty problems involved. This detailed exposition and explanation actually took the form of a commentary and the beginnings of the Abhidhamma can be partly traced to it.
Especially because of the fact that the greater part of the Dhamma was taught in a free style, the rich and varied contents of the suttas lent themselves to a wide variety of interpretations. As the word of the Buddha gradually grew into a religion and philosophy professed by an increasing number of people, the necessity arose for a precise and more categorical presentation of the doctrine. This was all the more necessary in view of the fact that other contemporary schools of religion and philosophy were turning out their own literature in which they attempted to present the doctrines precisely and systematically. The richness of the philosophical content of the Buddha's discourses allowed for the possibility of divergence of opinion even among the Buddhist monks themselves.
That this was actually so is indicated by the early history of the emergence of the Buddhist schools. Each school tried in its own way to render explicit what was only implicit in the earlier dis-courses of the Buddha. This process was probably accelerated after the Council of Vesāli which was exclusively devoted to the discussion of ten points of monastic discipline. It was at the Council of Pāṭaliputta, in Asoka's reign, that controversial points were settled and incorporated in the canonical texts under the name Kathāvatthuppakaraṇa. It would appear, therefore, that the various schools with schismatic tendencies had their origin between the two later Councils. In the Pāṭaliputta Council the dispute was no longer about rules of discipline, as at Vesāli, but about the finer points of psychology and logic. These divergences were naturally reflected in the Abhidhamma works that were in process of being compiled or composed at the time.
This also explains the reasons that led to the convention of many assemblies and councils for the purpose of determining the exact meaning of “points of controversy”. The differences came to be more exaggerated when each school held its own closed sessions to decide the import of the doctrine. The earlier life of eremitical mendicancy gave place gradually to one of settled monasticism and, as a result of the geographical expansion of early Buddhism, monasteries came to be established in scattered places, remote from each other. The life of leisure thus secured induced the monks to engage themselves in philosophical and literary pursuits and the geographical isolation of the monasteries resulted in the growth of independent schools of thought. This explains at once many of the disparities between the various schools in regard to the Abhidhamma. This also contrasts with the position relating to the Dhamma. Whereas there is a remarkable degree of agreement among the early schools on the interpretation of the early teachings included in the Dhamma, there is a marked lack of such agreement in regard to the doctrines contained in the Abhidhamma. The Dhamma was shared in common by all Buddhists prior to their secession into schools and their geographical separation from one another. In view of the differences among the schools on the subject of the Abhidhamma each felt the need for the compilation of a separate Piṭaka for the special and elaborated doctrine.
Even from the point of view of literature, we see the contrast between the Dhamma and the Abhidhamma. There is an almost complete correspondence between the Sutta Piṭakas of the early schools, as the available versions in Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese and Tibetan show. But in the case of the Abhidhamma Piṭakas, there is not even correspondence in name in regard to the titles of the canonical Abhidhamma texts, let alone agreement in doctrine. This disparity in literary works is especially clearly illustrated by a comparative study of the Sarvāstivāda and the Theravāda. We can, therefore, say that while the Dhamma belongs to the period of undivided Buddhism of the earliest days, the Abhidhamma belongs to the period of divided Buddhism. Thus alone can we account adequately for the wide measure of divergence in regard to the Abhidhamma Piṭakas and their subject-matter. From its very inception and throughout the medieval and modern periods, the Abhidhamma evolved and developed in the isolation of the separate schools.
THE METHOD OF THE ABHIDHAMMA.
The method of the Abhidhamma (Abhidhammanaya) is distinguished from that of the Suttanta. The difference between the Dhamma and the Abhidhamma consists precisely in the distinction between two methods. This method assumes the form of a special kind of analysis called Abhidhamma-bhājaniya, to be distinguished again from the Suttanta-bhājaniya. In the suttas there is frequent reference to loose and, therefore, vague and unscientific popular designations such as the term puggala for an individual. In the Abhidhamma, on the other hand, an impersonal technical terminology has taken the place of popular names. The individual, for instance, is considered here only in terms of so many categories such as khandha, dhātu and āyatana, in a more detailed and thorough way than is to be found in the suttas. Mrs. Rhys Davids (ERE. I, 19) [12] speaks of the Abhidhamma as a recount of suttanta doctrines, with analysis and elaborations and comment: hence, not a positive contribution to the philosophy of early Buddhism, but an analytic, logical and methodological elaboration of what was already given in discourses.
The analysis in the Abhidhamma proceeds with the aid of the method of induction. The progress from the particular to the general is always to the advantage of the Ābhidhammika. The observation of the nature and function or behaviour of particular objects and events and persons leads naturally to the statement of fundamental characteristics common to all phenomena. In the ultimate analysis, this method yields us knowledge about the first principles that govern the whole universe. It is this knowledge, elevated to the level of immediate intuition through the systematic purification and development of the human mind, that finally results in the realisation of full enlightenment. This explains why the Ābhidhammika shuns the method of deduction which only breeds endless speculation to becloud the purity and openness of the mind of the truth-seeker.
The method of the Ābhidhammika is not, however, confined only to the analytical. The Abhidhamma denies the competence of mere analysis to yield us a comprehensive statement of the nature and function of events and objects. Hence the Ābhidhammikas have recognised the importance of synthesis as a method that supplements analysis. In the Abhidhamma Piṭaka of the Theravādins the method of analysis is illustrated in the Dhammasaṅgaṇi, while the Paṭṭhana is wholly devoted to the application of the method of synthesis. Analysis helps us to know the participial nature of phenomena. Synthesis, on the other hand, gives insight into the dynamic function, as well as the cause for the separate identity, of the same phenomena.
The method of the Abhidhamma has given us a description of phenomena as they are made available to perception. This attempt to undertake only a descriptive analysis of empirical reality has eliminated the possibility of the intrusion of speculative matter into the Abhidhamma. The purpose of the Abhidhamma is solely to understand the world around and within us and the only function of the Ābhidhammika, which can be both ethically edifying and practically useful, is to describe the data as they are actually presented to perception. This invests the facts stated by the Abhidhamma with a scientific character.
W. S. KARUNARATNE
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Part I, 12: evam abhidharmo hi dharma-laksaṇopadeśasvarūpo vineyavaśāt tatra tatra bhagavatoktaḥ.
[2] DhsA. 17: Sammāsambuddho va paṭhamataraṃ Ābhidhammiko.
[3] DhsA. 3, 5, 21.
[4] DhsA. 31. i.e., origin pertaining to its realisation and that pertaining to its exposition (Abhidhammo dve nidānāni: adhigama-nidānaṃ desanā-nidānaṃ).
[5] DhsA. 32.
[6] Ibid.
[7] See also D. 267; M. I, 214, 218 ; A. I, 288, 290, III, 107.
[8] DhsA. 28.
[9] DhsA. 30, 31.
[10] DhsA. 3.
[11] DhsA. 4. Iti satthārā dinnanayena ṭhapitamātikāya desitattā, sakalaṃ petaṃ pakaraṇaṃ Buddhabhāsitaṃ eva nāma jātaṃ.
[12] Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. J. Hastings (1908)
D: Dīgha Nikāya; PTS
DhsA: Dhammasaṅgaṇi Aṭṭhakathā (Atthasālinī), PTS
M: Majjhima Nikāya, PTS
PTS: Pāli Text Society
