Moderator: Mahavihara moderator
Slothrop wrote:So since they are experiential and not essential, then the question is not, "What is a gelatin?" but rather, "How is a gelatin experienced?" Is that right?
Slothrop wrote:You're putting gelatin back into its original form. That's like saying the ice in my glass is characterized by the way it flows in the Amazon River.
Ven. Dhammanando wrote:The Abhidhamma's elemental analysis is concerned with animated rupa, not with external non-animated rupa. ... [Gelatin's] elemental composition will not be an abhidhammic concern.
... any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
Individual wrote:What is a "material octad"?
Dhammanando wrote:Individual wrote:What is a "material octad"?
The eight rupa dhammas that are inseparable and which constitute one material cluster. See chapter VI of the Abhidhammatthasangaha: http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/abhisgho/abhis06.htm
These four elements coexist and are inseparable, but one may preponderate over another as, for instance, pathavi in earth, apo in water, tejo in fire, and vayo in air.
They are also called Mahabhutas, or Great Essentials because they are invariably found in all material substances ranging from the infinitesimally small cell to the most massive object.
Dependent on them are the four subsidiary material qualities of colour (vanna), smell (gandha), taste (rasa), and nutritive essence (oja). These eight coexisting forces and qualities constitute one material group called 'suddhatthaka rupa kalapa - pure-octad material group'.
There may be an assumption built into this question.Individual wrote:... you can't think of the objects in their theoretical purity or in precise terms?
Pretend that I'm blind and describe "blue" for me.Individual wrote:What is red is not blue, what is not blue is not red, etc.. It's a useful classification because I can describe these properties ...
But these colors are just gradations of one of many attributes of an object, and the other attributes will still be inseparable from the object itself. You may be comparing apples with oranges.Individual wrote:But let's say instead that I were to say... That there is red, blue, green, yellow, etc., but that these colors are in fact inseparable! And in every object, there's a bit of each color! How confusing that would be!
Are you saying that it would make more sense if you could point to an object and describe it completely with the words, "That object is red"? What sort of object would have only a single property labeled "red"?Individual wrote:I can't say, "That object is red," but instead, "That's an octad (or hexad, pentad, whatever, doesn't matter how many colors I use) and no specific color can be identified."
Peter wrote:It seems your confusion is in regarding solidity and fluidity as two points on the same scale, just as red and blue are two points on the scale of photon frequency.
Individual wrote:Let's say you have something which has a roughly equal amount of the earth and liquid properties. What exactly would that be? In the case of red and blue, it would be purple.
Peter wrote:You are still missing it.
Peter wrote:Individual wrote:Let's say you have something which has a roughly equal amount of the earth and liquid properties. What exactly would that be? In the case of red and blue, it would be purple.
Something does not have equal amounts of red and blue. Rather something is of a color halfway between the frequency of red and the frequency of blue.
Registered users: Alex123, barcsimalsi, Ben, Bing [Bot], Coyote, Dan74, dannyj, diptych4, felipe, Google [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, Kim O'Hara, lewis454, mikenz66, Mr Man, palchi, piotr, puppha, purple planet, retrofuturist, Sam Vara, STM, willyloco, Zenainder