[Buddha-l] Non-Arising

[L.S. Cousins]

On 26/02/2010 21:03, Dan Lusthaus wrote:
> Long-time
> buddha-l-ers may remember a discussion some years back between Lance Cousins
> and myself on this issue. Lance, relying on Frauwallner (who, in his survey
> of Abhidharma literature, made great effort to minimize differences from
> Theravadin versions), argued that the non-Theravadin adhidharma materials
> corresponded, virtually book by book with the Theravadin versions. I took
> the opposite position, pointing out that it was in this pitika that one
> finds the greatest variance between the difference schools.
>    
This overstates my position at the time, let alone now. The last three 
works of the Pali Abhidhamma-piṭaka do not have parallels in the works 
of the Sarvāstivādin Abhidharma-piṭaka, although there are parallels to 
some of the ideas contained in them. We do not know if they had 
parallels in other Abhidharma collections, but they may have done. I was 
actually referring to the first two works which clearly have a common 
underlying structure shared with parts of the Sarvāstivādin 
Abhidharma-piṭaka and with the non-Sarvāstivādin Sāriputrābhidharma.
> Since I was the one pressing for recognizing the differences, let me clarify
> that there are definite affinities between the abhidharma literatures of the
> various schools, though they evolve differently. Some texts -- one presumes
> the earliest -- match up better than others. And the Sarvastivadins, etc.,
> developed a debate literature within the abhidharma that has no Theravada
> parallel. So the claim the there is "little in common" between Theravada
> abhidhamma and other Abhidharmas is simply false. There are big differences,
> but not a radical disjunct.
>
>    
I agree with most of this, although there is some parallel with the 
debate literature in the  Pali aṭṭhakathā.

Lance Cousins