There
is a common argument among the scholars that four Nikāyas (Dīgha, Majjhima, Saṃyutta
and Aṅguttara Nikāya) mostly represent the earlier period of Buddhist
teachings. These earlier discourses underwent a considerable development in the
period of at least 300 years after the Buddhas Parinibbāna. The result of this
development is the present collection of Tipiṭaka. The discourses found in
Sutta Piṭaka had mainly been classified not according to the subject matter,
but mostly as the external features. The reason of this diversity of the
discourse is that they were delivered on different occasions for various purposes
depending on the nature of audience. The about mentioned complicated nature of
the discourses creates differences in understanding their true sense. This was
evident even during the time of the Buddha e.g., monk Sāti (Mahātaṇhāsaṅkhaya
Sutta of Majjhima Nikāya) and carpenter Pañcakaṅga (Anuruddha sutta of Majjhima
Nikāya) are prominent. At a later period as recorded in Kathāvatthuppakaraṇa,
misinterpretation of Buddha's discourses was a prominent case among various
Buddhist sects. 15 Accordantly it is true that the interpretation of the
Buddha's discourses has been a point of controversy since the time of the
Buddha. Therefore, the evolution of Abhidhamma should be identified as a result
of the gradual development of the discourses. At the time of the Buddha's
passing away, his teaching had not been collected and classified systematically
and extensively. They were introduced by the disciples as Dhamma and Vinaya,
Navāṅgasatthusāsana or simply as Dhamma. 5 The leading disciples realized the
importance of classification of the collection of the Buddha's teaching for the
sake of future generation. These were done to a certain extent at the First
Buddhist Council. The teachings were classified into two sections as Dhamma and
Vinaya. The third step of systematization of the teaching was to abstract the
doctrinal teaching from the discourses in order to preserve them as pure Dhamma
without distorting with other conventional teachings. Here it is to be noted
that there was a division of the Buddha's teaching into conventional and
absolute (sammuti and paramattha). These divisions were based on the two kinds
of teachings as it is given in Aṅguttara Nikāya: Neyyattha and Nītattha.
Neyyattha suttas have indirect meanings and they were interpreted by adding
meanings to them. Nītattha suttas had direct meanings and they had to be
interpreted as they were. The commentary to the Aṅguttara Nikāya explains these
two kinds of suttas accordantly to the nature of the neyyattha suttas are, for
example: „O monk, there is one individual, there are two individuals, there are
three individuals etc.“ Therefore, according to the example, there is no such
an individual in reality. The nature of the nītattha sutta is „this is
impermanent, this is sorrowful, this is soulless.“ Therefore, it is wrong to
say there is something permanent or eternal. Therefore, nītattha suttas paved
the way for the concept of conventional teaching and neyyattha suttas for the
absolute teachings. It is accepted that Abhidhamma emerged from neyyattha
suttas. The doctrinal aspects abstracted from the discourses can be identified
as follows: 1. Five aggregates 2. Four great elements 3. Twelve faculties 4.
Eighteen elements 5. Nibbāna The followers undertook the importance of
analyzing that doctrinal concept without contributing to the conventional form
of language. These processes of defining and analyzing the doctrinal concepts
created many problems among the disciples belonging to different Buddhist
sects. Thus, the collection, classification and definition of different sects
were preserved as separate canonical texts and they were introduced by a new
term called „Abhidhamma.“ It is a fact that the Sutta and Vinaya of early
collection of the Buddha's teaching are very similar to a certain extent. But
the Abhidhamma came into being as process of interpretation of the early
Buddhist teaching by different Buddhist sects.
Comments
Post a Comment