69276Re: Antw.: [dsg] Q. Rupas, Ch 1, no 2
- Mar 6, 2007--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Herman Hofman"
>. You have approached the Abhidhamma in the light
> of what Buddhaghosa has had to say about it. And what Buddhaghosa
> had to say about it is in stark contrast to the commentarialreductionist,
> guidelines that actually come with the Abhidhamma, the Katthavatthu.
> In preferring Buddhaghosa, who wrote some 700 / 800 years after
> Mogalliputta-tissa directions about how not to read the Abhidhamma,
> you show a preference for a substantialist/essentialist,
> absolutist kind of world. This approach is distinctly at odds withthe
> way the KatthaVatthu directs the student to approach the Abhidhamma.following
> If you interested in pursuing the matter, I point you to the
> A History of Buddhist Philosophy: Continuities and Discontinuities,
> David J. Kalupahana; University of Hawaii Press, 1992Dear Herman
I read professor Kalupahana any years ago - found his books confusing
and misleading about what Dhamma is. I can't remember specific
details but he seemed to try to mix Mahayana in with his ideas about
what Theravada shoudl be. But I don't have a copy of his book so if
you want to discuss more, please quote the relevant passages.
- << Previous post in topic