Metaphysics / Abhidhamma VS Life Improvement

[Roath]

Dear All,

As defined in the dictionary, ''metaphysics'' is the part of philosophy that is concerned with trying to understand and describe the nature of truth, life, and reality. So, let me ask you how the metaphysics / Abhidhamma can improve our life?

This question is actually not mine, but of a business-minded friend (MBA Graduate) of mine who asked me recently following our discussion of Buddhism and reasons to believe.

Yours in Dhamma,
Roath

[Sobeh]

I'd like to make a preliminary notation: the abhidhamma isn't equal to the branch of philosophy called metaphysics; more properly it is a branch of metaphysics called ontology, with epistemology as a core foundation. Overall, however, the Dhamma does not sit inside the various categories of Western philosophy with any precision, and so asking "of what use is metaphysics" is not the same as asking "of what use is the abhidhamma".

[meindzai]

Overall, however, the Dhamma does not sit inside the various categories of Western philosophy with any precision, and so asking "of what use is metaphysics" is not the same as asking "of what use is the abhidhamma".

Very, very nicely put.

The problem I've had with most western metaphysics is that, outside of a search for something called "the truth," it has no clearly stated purpose. If any of these philosophers actually managed to get a hold of the nature of truth, life, and reality, they probably wouldn't know what to do with it.

Abhidhamma not an abstraction for the sake of talking about something, but a tool for framing our experience in order to develop wisdom and put an end to suffering.

-M

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Excellent responses.



Metta,
Retro.

[Brizzy]

Dear All,

As defined in the dictionary, ''metaphysics'' is the part of philosophy that is concerned with trying to understand and describe the nature of truth, life, and reality. So, let me ask you how the metaphysics / Abhidhamma can improve our life?

This question is actually not mine, but of a business-minded friend (MBA Graduate) of mine who asked me recently following our discussion of Buddhism and reasons to believe.

Yours in Dhamma,
Roath

Hi

How can Abhidhamma improve our life?

Mendzai wrote.........."Abhidhamma not an abstraction for the sake of talking about something, but a tool for framing our experience in order to develop wisdom and put an end to suffering."


Is'nt that a bit like having to understand aerodynamics to be able to play football? Most footballers I know just practice.

[robertk]

Dear All,


Roath

Hi

How can Abhidhamma improve our life?

Mendzai wrote.........."Abhidhamma not an abstraction for the sake of talking about something, but a tool for framing our experience in order to develop wisdom and put an end to suffering."


Is'nt that a bit like having to understand aerodynamics to be able to play football? Most footballers I know just practice.

http://www.abhidhamma.org/sitagu%20sayadaw.htm
Since Vipassana meditation takes the Abhidhamma as its sole object of contemplation, Vipassana and Abhidhamma cannot be separated. And while it may not be said that one can practice Vipassana only after one has mastered the Abhidhamma, Vipassana meditation and the study of Abhidhamma remain one and the same thing. Because mind, mental factors and matter are forever bound up with this fathom-long body, the study and learning of this subject, and the concentrated observation of the nature of mind, mental factors and matter are tasks which cannot be distinguished.
Since at the very least one would have to say that there can be no Vipassana without an understanding of mind and matter, surely then it is not possible to separate Abhidhamma and Vipassana.

[robertk]

In the Intro. to the Vibhanga (Abhidhamma pitaka) (Pali text society) Iggelden writes "It is all very well to say 'I know what is right and what is wrong'The fact is very few people do know when it comes to the precison of mental behaviour essential to correct development toward release. It is this exactitude of behaviour;mental physical and the conseqeunces thereof, that the scriptures elucidate in detail".

Iggelden carries on :

It is all very well to say 'I know what needs to be done to break the continuity of rebirth and death'. In fact very few people know of even the most elementary reasons for the continuity of process, let alone of breaking it. It is the detailed description, analysis and reasons given for this cyclic process that the scriptures spend so much care in putting before us. It is all very well to say 'What do I want to know all these
definitions of terms for, it only clutters the mind?'The question is, though, how many people when they seriously ask themselves as to the extent and range of some such apparently simple terms as greed, hatred and ignorance, can know their full and proper implications and manifestations within their own thoughts and actions..This the scriptures are at pains to make clear to even the dullest reader.."

[tiltbillings]

Since Vipassana meditation takes the Abhidhamma as its sole object of contemplation, Vipassana and Abhidhamma cannot be separated.

Vipassana/mindfulness does not depend upon the Abhidhamma, given that one can attain insight (vipassana)/awakening via the conventional teachings. The Abhidhamma is not superior to the conventional Dhamma teachings.


From the commentary of to the Anguttara Nikaya:

Herein references to living beings, gods, Brahma, etc., are sammuti-kathā, whereas
references to impermanence, suffering, egolessness, the aggregates of the empiric
individuality, the spheres and elements of sense perception and mind-cognition, bases of
mindfulness, right effort, etc., are paramattha-kathā. One who is capable of understanding
and penetrating to the truth and hoisting the flag of Arahantship when the teaching is set out
in terms of generally accepted conventions, to him the Buddha preaches the doctrine based on
sammuti-kathā. One who is capable of understanding and penetrating to the truth and hoisting
the flag of Arahantship when the teaching is set out in terms of ultimate categories, to him the
Buddha preaches the doctrine based on paramattha-kathā. To one who is capable of
awakening to the truth through sammuti-kathā , the teaching is not presented on the basis of
paramattha-kathā, and conversely, to one who is capable of awakening to the truth through
paramattha-kathā, the teaching is not presented on the basis of sammuti-kathā. There is this
simile on this matter: Just as a teacher of the three Vedas who is capable of explaining their
meaning in different dialects might teach his pupils, adopting the particular dialect, which
each pupil understands, even so the Buddha preaches the doctrine adopting, according to the
suitability of the occasion, either the sammuti- or the paramattha-kathā. It is by taking into
consideration the ability of each individual to understand the Four Noble Truths, that the
Buddha presents his teaching, either by way of sammuti, or by way of paramattha, or by way
of both. Whatever the method adopted the purpose is the same, to show the way to
Immortality through the analysis of mental and physical phenomena. AA. Vol. I, pp.54-55

http://kr.buddhism.org/~skb/down/papers/094.pdf

sammuti-kathā is not inferior to paramattha-kathā.

[meindzai]

Is'nt that a bit like having to understand aerodynamics to be able to play football? Most footballers I know just practice.

So they are born knowing how to play? And they never get any coaching? You just drop a bunch of babies out onto a field and they know what to do?

Amazing. Just shows how little I know about sports.

-M

[Brizzy]

Is'nt that a bit like having to understand aerodynamics to be able to play football? Most footballers I know just practice.

So they are born knowing how to play? And they never get any coaching? You just drop a bunch of babies out onto a field and they know what to do?

Amazing. Just shows how little I know about sports.

-M

They dont know how to play & they do get coaching. What they dont get is a lesson on aerodynamics, to "understand" how to play. To do so would be a little bit pointless.(especially for babies).

[pt1]

Since Vipassana meditation takes the Abhidhamma as its sole object of contemplation, Vipassana and Abhidhamma cannot be separated.

Vipassana/mindfulness does not depend upon the Abhidhamma, given that one can attain insight (vipassana)/awakening via the conventional teachings. The Abhidhamma is not superior to the conventional Dhamma teachings.
...
sammuti-kathā is not inferior to paramattha-kathā.

Hi tilt, as promised, I think I need to respectfully disagree with your conclusions above, or at least argue that they are not complete.

Firstly, I don't see the commentarial passage saying that "sammuti-kathā is not inferior to paramattha-kathā". Rather, it seems to say that the Buddha can teach using one of the two ways depending on the student's abilities. This seems reasonable since the Buddha had the power of discerning other's abilities, so he could tell what way would be the most suitable in a particular situation.

Secondly, since none of us have that ability, I think we need to be careful when it comes to using ultimate/conventional terminology. Though I'm fond of conventional terminology myself, I have to admit that it is very easy for me as a worldling to get confused about what's exactly meant by conventional terms (especially when precision is needed) like meditation, awareness, etc, or dhammas, as evident in the other thread. So, that's why I think that in some matters, especially the ones dealing with insight, ultimate terminology is often more suitable because it leaves much less room for confusion.

Thirdly, I might be wrong, but I think you're missing the point of Robert's post - I think what he's saying is that insight when it happens takes dhamma(s) as object, not concepts/conventional notions. Hence, employing ultimate terminology might be very useful when talking about insight in particular so as to avoid confusion, even though such terminology will also essentially employ concepts. I mean, the description of moments of insight seems closer to how it really happens when it's described in ultimate, rather than in conventional terminology.

I'd be glad to hear if you disagree on the above. Thanks.

Best wishes

[Brizzy]

Since Vipassana meditation takes the Abhidhamma as its sole object of contemplation, Vipassana and Abhidhamma cannot be separated.

Vipassana/mindfulness does not depend upon the Abhidhamma, given that one can attain insight (vipassana)/awakening via the conventional teachings. The Abhidhamma is not superior to the conventional Dhamma teachings.
...
sammuti-kathā is not inferior to paramattha-kathā.

Hi tilt, as promised, I think I need to respectfully disagree with your conclusions above, or at least argue that they are not complete.

Firstly, I don't see the commentarial passage saying that "sammuti-kathā is not inferior to paramattha-kathā". Rather, it seems to say that the Buddha can teach using one of the two ways depending on the student's abilities. This seems reasonable since the Buddha had the power of discerning other's abilities, so he could tell what way would be the most suitable in a particular situation.

Secondly, since none of us have that ability, I think we need to be careful when it comes to using ultimate/conventional terminology. Though I'm fond of conventional terminology myself, I have to admit that it is very easy for me as a worldling to get confused about what's exactly meant by conventional terms (especially when precision is needed) like meditation, awareness, etc, or dhammas, as evident in the other thread. So, that's why I think that in some matters, especially the ones dealing with insight, ultimate terminology is often more suitable because it leaves much less room for confusion.

Thirdly, I might be wrong, but I think you're missing the point of Robert's post - I think what he's saying is that insight when it happens takes dhamma(s) as object, not concepts/conventional notions. Hence, employing ultimate terminology might be very useful when talking about insight in particular so as to avoid confusion, even though such terminology will also essentially employ concepts. I mean, the description of moments of insight seems closer to how it really happens when it's described in ultimate, rather than in conventional terminology.

I'd be glad to hear if you disagree on the above. Thanks.

Best wishes

Hi
I am pretty much of a numbskull as regards Abhidhamma. Are you saying that insight happens when it takes dhamma(s) (dependently arisen phenomena) and not concepts (dependently arisen phenomena).

[pt1]

Are you saying that insight happens when it takes dhamma(s) (dependently arisen phenomena) and not concepts (dependently arisen phenomena).

In simple terms, my understanding is that citta takes a dhamma as the object, and one of the characteristcs of that dhamma (like anatta) is understood at the time thanks to the arising of wisdom/insight. This arising of wisdom can be explained in a bit more complicated manner as the simultaneous arising of various wholesome mental factors at the time, such as panna(wisdom, non-ignorance), sati (mindfulness), alobha (non-greed), adosa (non-hate), etc. So, yes, my understanding is that only dhammas and not concepts will be the object of citta when insight happens, so it seems important to understnad what's the difference between dhammas and concepts.

Best wishes

[tiltbillings]

Hi tilt, as promised, I think I need to respectfully disagree with your conclusions above, or at least argue that they are not complete.

I would suggest, maybe, reading the essay concerning two truths linked at the bottom of my above quote.

Firstly, I don't see the commentarial passage saying that "sammuti-kathā is not inferior to paramattha-kathā". Rather, it seems to say that the Buddha can teach using one of the two ways depending on the student's abilities. This seems reasonable since the Buddha had the power of discerning other's abilities, so he could tell what way would be the most suitable in a particular situation.

I do not see the above quote saying that the paramattha-kathā is superior

I think we need to be careful when it comes to using ultimate/conventional terminology. Though I'm fond of conventional terminology myself, I have to admit that it is very easy for me as a worldling to get confused about what's exactly meant by conventional terms (especially when precision is needed) like meditation, awareness, etc, or dhammas, as evident in the other thread. So, that's why I think that in some matters, especially the ones dealing with insight, ultimate terminology is often more suitable because it leaves much less room for confusion.

And the paramattha terms present their own very serious problems, such as the reification of the idea of dhamma as some sort of existing things, which opens all sorts of philosophical problems.

Thirdly, I might be wrong, but I think you're missing the point of Robert's post - I think what he's saying is that insight when it happens takes dhamma(s) as object, not concepts/conventional notions.

Depends upon how one chooses to define dhamma. Dhamma theory itself is a conceptual construct, no less than what we find in conventional discourse. What the Abhidhamma offers, and here I am talking about the Pitaka texts, is a refined way of talking about practice, but it is not one that is somehow more true than conventional.

Hence, employing ultimate terminology might be very useful when talking about insight in particular so as to avoid confusion, even though such terminology will also essentially employ concepts. I mean, the description of moments of insight seems closer to how it really happens when it's described in ultimate, rather than in conventional terminology.

Maybe, but it is not necessary for the practice of insight, as the commentarial passage makes clear.

[Brizzy]

Are you saying that insight happens when it takes dhamma(s) (dependently arisen phenomena) and not concepts (dependently arisen phenomena).

In simple terms, my understanding is that citta takes a dhamma as the object, and one of the characteristcs of that dhamma (like anatta) is understood at the time thanks to the arising of wisdom/insight. This arising of wisdom can be explained in a bit more complicated manner as the simultaneous arising of various wholesome mental factors at the time, such as panna(wisdom, non-ignorance), sati (mindfulness), alobha (non-greed), adosa (non-hate), etc. So, yes, my understanding is that only dhammas and not concepts will be the object of citta when insight happens, so it seems important to understnad what's the difference between dhammas and concepts.

Best wishes

Hi

Thanks for taking the time pt1 - everything is now clear - as mud
I think that I better withdraw from this thread before I show how ignorant I am of Abhidhammic doctrines.
I like talk about calming the mind and training in virtue and how great the Buddha was.

[pt1]

Thanks for your thoughts tilt.

I would suggest, maybe, reading the essay concerning two truths linked at the bottom of my above quote.

From memory, I agree with most of the things the Professor explains there, though I probably understand some things differently than you, though of course that doesn't have to mean I'm correct.

I do not see the above quote saying that the paramattha-kathā is superior

Well, I agree, but I don't think that conclusion goes far enough, or rather it doesn't go in the right direction. Imo, the commentary quote is not concerned with the issue of superiority at all, but describes how the Buddha teaches. With that in mind, I find several important differences between how the Buddha teaches and how the rest of us teach/discuss Dhamma. E.g:
-The Buddha knows the abilities of others, we (usually) don't.
-The Buddha will not get confused and conceive selves, things, etc. in the terms he uses, we (usually) will.
-The Buddha has the experience of dhammas through insight, we (usually) don't. Etc.

Hence why I feel we need to be careful no matter what terminology we employ. Imo, conventional terminology is suitable in most circumstances, but when insight is discussed and especially the very fine points, I find that ultimate terminology can cut through a lot of confusion and unnecessary arguments.

And the paramattha terms present their own very serious problems, such as the reification of the idea of dhamma as some sort of existing things, which opens all sorts of philosophical problems.

Well, people like philosphying, though imo dhammas offer much less room for that in comparison with other conventional notions.

Depends upon how one chooses to define dhamma. Dhamma theory itself is a conceptual construct, no less than what we find in conventional discourse. What the Abhidhamma offers, and here I am talking about the Pitaka texts, is a refined way of talking about practice, but it is not one that is somehow more true than conventional.

I think I disagree here because again imo it's not about whether one is more true than the other, but which one is more effective in particular circumstances. While it certainly depends on people and their abilities at a particular instance, I personally find that explanations in terms of dhammas (whether in sutta or abhidhamma pitakas) cut through confusion much more effectively when it comes to insight.

Hence, employing ultimate terminology might be very useful when talking about insight in particular so as to avoid confusion, even though such terminology will also essentially employ concepts. I mean, the description of moments of insight seems closer to how it really happens when it's described in ultimate, rather than in conventional terminology.

Maybe, but it is not necessary for the practice of insight, as the commentarial passage makes clear.

Again I feel this conclusion is partial, I mean, yes, we can conclude from the commentary passage that one of the two might be enough, so it could be either of the two that is not necessary. But even with such more politically-correct conclusion I feel we're still missing the point. I.e. to me it seems it's all about the actual circumstances and abilities, so in that sense I feel the ultimate terminology can help tremendously when it comes to insight in particular, because descriptions of insight experience in terms of dhammas seem to be closer to how it really happens than more conventional notions.

Best wishes

[pt1]

Thanks for taking the time pt1 - everything is now clear - as mud
I think that I better withdraw from this thread before I show how ignorant I am of Abhidhammic doctrines.
I like talk about calming the mind and training in virtue and how great the Buddha was.

No worries, discussing development of virtue and tranquility is also very valuable. It took me a long time to begin to appreciate abdhidhamma - usually I just used to avoid it like plague. But when I became interested in insight, then it started to make sense. Maybe you'll find it useful as well at some point, or maybe not as tilt suggests. Either way, don't be reluctant to ask questions about abhidhamma or anything else no matter how ignorant you think you might be, questions are usually very helpful for both those who ask and those who try to answer.

Best wishes

[tiltbillings]

I think I disagree here because again imo it's not about whether one is more true than the other, but which one is more effective in particular circumstances. While it certainly depends on people and their abilities at a particular instance, I personally find that explanations in terms of dhammas (whether in sutta or abhidhamma pitakas) cut through confusion much more effectively when it comes to insight.

I am afraid there are those (not referring to you or anyone in particular) who assume that what they think is more effective is also truer. For you and others the Abhidhamma may be more effective, but not necessarily for me or others, and that is the point of the commentary I quoted.

Again I feel this conclusion is partial, I mean, yes, we can conclude from the commentary passage that one of the two might be enough, so it could be either of the two that is not necessary. But even with such more politically-correct conclusion I feel we're still missing the point. I.e. to me it seems it's all about the actual circumstances and abilities, so in that sense I feel the ultimate terminology can help tremendously when it comes to insight in particular, because descriptions of insight experience in terms of dhammas seem to be closer to how it really happens than more conventional notions.

Having worked with the Abhidhamma with a (non-Sujin) meditation teacher, I’ll go with the suttas. Interesting we do not see in the suttas people referring to their Abhidhamma practice.

[cooran]

Hello Tilt,

Many people do not see that you have to be one or the other - and choose to accept the whole Tipitaka.

INTRODUCING BUDDHIST ABHIDHAMMA: Meditation and Concentration ~ by U Kyaw Min
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... ration.htm

with metta
Chris

[tiltbillings]

Hello Tilt,

Many people do not see that you have to be one or the other - and choose to accept the whole Tipitaka.

INTRODUCING BUDDHIST ABHIDHAMMA: Meditation and Concentration ~ by U Kyaw Min
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... ration.htm

with metta
Chris

I am not advocating one OR the other.