authority of abhidharma texts and included them
within their canons as the word of the Buddha, several
schools rejected the authority of abhidharma and
claimed that abhidharma treatises were composed by
fallible, human teachers.
Independent abhidharma treatises were composed
over a period of at least seven hundred years (ca. third
or second centuries B.C.E. to fifth century C.E.). The appearance
and eventual proliferation of these independent
abhidharma treatises coincides with the emergence
of separate schools within the early Buddhist community.
Doctrinal differences among various groups,
which were, in part, the natural result of differing lineages
of textual transmission, were refined in scholastic
debates and amplified by the composition of
independent abhidharma exegetical works. Scholarly
opinion on the sources for the genre of independent
abhidharma treatises is divided between two hypotheses,
each of which finds support in structural characteristics
of abhidharma texts. The first hypothesis
emphasizes the practice of formulating matrices or taxonomic
lists (ma trka ) of all topics found in the traditional
teaching, which are then arranged according to
both numeric and qualitative criteria. The second hypothesis
stresses the doctrinal discussions (dharmakatha
) in catechetical style that attempt to clarify
complex or obscure points of doctrine. These two
structural characteristics suggest a typical process by
which independent abhidharma treatises were composed:
A matrix outline served to record or possibly
direct discussions in which points of doctrine were
then elaborated through a pedagogical question and
answer technique.
Regardless of which hypothesis more accurately
represents the origin of independent abhidharma treatises,
this dual exegetical method reflects a persistent
tendency in the Buddhist tradition, from the earliest
period onward, toward analytical presentation through
taxonomic categories and toward discursive elaboration
through catechesis. The need to memorize the
teaching obviously promoted the use of categorizing
lists as a mnemonic device, and certain sutras describe
this taxonomic method as a way of encapsulating the
essentials of the teaching and averting dissension.
Other sutras proceed much like oral commentaries, in
which a brief doctrinal statement by the Buddha is analyzed
in full through a process of interrogation and
exposition. Both of these methods, amply attested in
the sutra collection, were successively expanded in subsequent
independent scholastic treatises, some of
which were not included within the sectarian, canonical
abhidharma collections. For example, the collection
of miscellaneous texts (khuddakapitaka) of the
canon of the THERAVADA school includes two texts utilizing
these methods that were not recognized to be
canonical “abhidharma” texts. The Patisambhida magga
(Path of Discrimination) contains brief discussions of
doctrinal points structured according to a topical list
(ma tika ), and the Niddesa (Exposition) consists of commentary
on the early verse collection, the Suttanipa ta.
In fact, a clear-cut point of origin for the abhidharma
as an independent section of the textual canon only reflects
the perspective of the later tradition that designates,
after a long forgotten evolution, certain texts as
“abhidharma” in contrast to sutras or other possibly earlier
expository works that share similar characteristics.
Topic: Abhidhamma utk Pemula (Read 30415 times)