What is the meaning of Paramattha?

Discussion of Abhidhamma and related Commentaries
Bakmoon
Posts: 637
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:14 pm

Re: What is the meanig of Paramattha?

Post by Bakmoon »

thomaslaw wrote:Dear Dhamma friends,

Having read your postings regarding the notion/concept of Paramattha, and the information of this notion shown in Abhidhammattha Sangaha 'Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma', p. 25, it is very likely that the teachings of Paramattha (and its connection with Pa~n~natti 'Concept') are obviously 'not' supported by the suttas, such as the SN suttas (cf. Choong MK, The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, pp. 54, 92, 138 (on 'pa~n~naapeti'), 154).
E.g. the five aggregates (according to the SN suttas) should be seen as they realy are as 'void (without reality, rittaka), insubstantial (tucchaka), and lacking essence (asaaraka)' (SN 22.95: PTS, iii, 140-143), because they (the five aggregates) are phenomena (dhammas) arisen by causal condition ('not' by their own right as 'irreducible' realities/components of existence), having the nature (dhamma) of anicca 'impermanence', nirodha 'cessation' (SN 12.20: PTS ii, 25-27).

Regards,

Thomas
I'm sorry but I don't quite see how seeing Dhammas as being Paramattha contradicts seeing them as being void, insubstantial, and lacking essence. When we say that a dhamma exists ultimately, we mean (in my understanding) that it is a part of direct experience rather than being a concept based on experience. This is true of all four classes of ultimate objects in Abhidhamma. Rupa, Citta, Cetasika, and Nibbana are all things that are experienced.

What we do not mean when we say that dhammas exist ultimately is that they have an essence or an existence that is not dependent on other things. The Theravada school explicitly rejects such an idea in the Patisambhidamagga which has an entire chapter that just lists all the different categories of analysis (the aggregates, the sense bases, etc... all the way up to Nibbana) and says that they are empty. It is true that sometimes in Theravada Abhidhamma the term Sabhava comes up (which is the Pali equivalent of the Sanskrit term Svabhava) but in the context of Theravadin Abhidhamma (as opposed for example to Sarvastivadin Abhidharma) the term doesn't mean an 'essence' or 'intrinsic existence' but is a general term that just means property, not essence.
The non-doing of any evil,
The performance of what's skillful,
The cleansing of one's own mind:
This is the Buddhas' teaching.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: What is the meanig of Paramattha?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Bakmoon,
Bakmoon wrote:When we say that a dhamma exists ultimately, we mean (in my understanding) that it is a part of direct experience rather than being a concept based on experience.

...

What we do not mean when we say that dhammas exist ultimately is that they have an essence or an existence that is not dependent on other things.
I have no problem personally with what is said here, but if you ask an Abhidhammika whether nama and rupa exist independently of being observed/experienced, I believe they would actually say yes.

The only "other things" that are recognised in this context as dependencies seem to be the past momentary dhammas that gave rise to the present momentary dhamma.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
SarathW
Posts: 21231
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: What is the meanig of Paramattha?

Post by SarathW »

thomaslaw wrote:Dear Dhamma friends,

Having read your postings regarding the notion/concept of Paramattha, and the information of this notion shown in Abhidhammattha Sangaha 'Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma', p. 25, it is very likely that the teachings of Paramattha (and its connection with Pa~n~natti 'Concept') are obviously 'not' supported by the suttas, such as the SN suttas (cf. Choong MK, The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, pp. 54, 92, 138 (on 'pa~n~naapeti'), 154).
E.g. the five aggregates (according to the SN suttas) should be seen as they realy are as 'void (without reality, rittaka), insubstantial (tucchaka), and lacking essence (asaaraka)' (SN 22.95: PTS, iii, 140-143), because they (the five aggregates) are phenomena (dhammas) arisen by causal condition ('not' by their own right as 'irreducible' realities/components of existence), having the nature (dhamma) of anicca 'impermanence', nirodha 'cessation' (SN 12.20: PTS ii, 25-27).

Regards,

Thomas
Thanks Thomas
Please read the following article and what is your thoughts on this.
My understanding of Paramattha is sum up as follows: (supported by this article)
===========
Thus, for the Theravadin,
the use of the term paramattha does not carry any substantialist implications. It
only means that the mental and material dhammas represent the utmost limits to
which the analysis of empirical existence can be pushed.

PAGE 14
http://www.zeh-verlag.de/download/dhammatheory.pdf
======
PS: I think this apply for Nibbana as well.
:thinking:
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: What is the meanig of Paramattha?

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote: I have no problem personally with what is said here, but if you ask an Abhidhammika whether nama and rupa exist independently of being observed/experienced, I believe they would actually say yes.
There are some quotes in this post http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 80#p269377 that I would take more seriously than some generalised impression of "what an Abhidhammika would say". They indicate rather more nuanced approach.

I don't think the question of independent existence is really addressed in the Suttas or the Canonical Abhidhamma, and to me from what I've read in the Commentaries it does not seem to be a big issue. I see statements that I would interpret more along the lines of "this happens". However, some may read "this exists" into many statements in the Suttas, Abhidhamma, and Commentaries, particularly since English translations often tend to read like that, due to the way English is structured (with subjects and objects). For example, the common sutta statement that is often translated as "seeing things as they actually are": http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=9782, or the sutta statement often translated as "there is an unborn": http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 409#p33515.

I'd be delighted to see some definitive statements from the Canonical Abhidhamma or Commentaries that we could discuss, bearing in mind that the purpose of this Forum is to elucidate the meaning of the Abhidhamma (not to argue about it's correctness, which belongs over here: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate).

:anjali:
Mike
Bakmoon
Posts: 637
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:14 pm

Re: What is the meanig of Paramattha?

Post by Bakmoon »

mikenz66 wrote: I don't think the question of independent existence is really addressed in the Suttas or the Canonical Abhidhamma, and to me from what I've read in the Commentaries it does not seem to be a big issue. I see statements that I would interpret more along the lines of "this happens". However, some may read "this exists" into many statements in the Suttas, Abhidhamma, and Commentaries, particularly since English translations often tend to read like that, due to the way English is structured (with subjects and objects). For example, the common sutta statement that is often translated as "seeing things as they actually are": http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=9782, or the sutta statement often translated as "there is an unborn": http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 409#p33515.

I'd be delighted to see some definitive statements from the Canonical Abhidhamma or Commentaries that we could discuss, bearing in mind that the purpose of this Forum is to elucidate the meaning of the Abhidhamma (not to argue about it's correctness, which belongs over here: The great Abhidhamma Pitaka authenticity debate).

:anjali:
Mike
Well said. In particular I find it very important to correctly understand the relevant passage from the Atthasalini which defines the term Dhamma. In my reading so far it seems to be the most explicit discussion of the topic, although unfortunately for us, the passage is very short:
Dhammas may be defined as those states which bear their own intrinsic natures (Sabhava), or which are borne by causes-in-relation, or which are borne according to their own characteristics
For me personally, one of the first things that jumps out at me reading this passage is that it follows the standard abhidhamma format for a definition which is to list a number of synonyms. Here the second two synonymous definitions identify a Dhamma in terms of arising from a cause and possessing its own characteristics, so in context the term Sabhava is in a parallel structure with the terms causes-in-relation and characteristics and so should be understood in a similar sense.

In particular, seeing the term Sabhava in the same context as the term characteristic (I think it's being used to translate Lakkhana) brings up a whole different set of connotations and aspects to the term Sabhava than the term would otherwise. In particular, it strongly indicates to me that it is being used as a synonym of the term Dhatu, which means something more like property. Linguistic evidence also indicates that there is such an aspect to the term, as the Sanskrit equivalent Svabhava is discussed in treatises in logic where it is given two senses, the sense of essence and the sense of mere property. Given this kind of distinction being made in Sanskrit and the parallel definition format, to me it is fairly clear that the term Sabhava is being used purely in the sense of property.

The subcommentary on the Atthasalini also seems to be cognizant of this sort of debate by famously elaborating "There is no other thing than the quality born by it" which to me seems quite definitive when combined with this contextualized understanding of the term Sabhava. Not only is Sabhava referring purely to the actual characteristics of a Dhamma, but by the subcommentary's interpretation, on the ultimate level reality only extends to the characteristics themselves and no further.

I find this to match up nicely with one of my favorite Suttas:
"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
The Lakkhana of a dhamma are part of the experience of it and so postulating any existence beyond experience by definition "lies beyond range" of what is directly knowable when talking on the ultimate level.
The non-doing of any evil,
The performance of what's skillful,
The cleansing of one's own mind:
This is the Buddhas' teaching.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What is the meanig of Paramattha?

Post by tiltbillings »

Bakmoon wrote: . . .
Nicely stated.
The Lakkhana of a dhamma are part of the experience of it and so postulating any existence beyond experience by definition "lies beyond range" of what is directly knowable when talking on the ultimate level.
Basically, dhammas are a way of talking about experience.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
SarathW
Posts: 21231
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: What is the meaning of Paramattha?

Post by SarathW »

Thanks Bakmoon
How does Nibbana is fitting to your analysis?
Does Nibbana also realise within the range?
:thinking:
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What is the meaning of Paramattha?

Post by tiltbillings »

SarathW wrote:Thanks Bakmoon
How does Nibbana is fitting to your analysis?
Does Nibbana also realise within the range?
:thinking:
Nibbana does not "realize."
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: What is the meaning of Paramattha?

Post by robertk »

Samyutta nikaya Khandhavagga (37(5)Ananda
P880 Bodhi translation
"the blessed one said to Ananda
"if Ananda they were to ask you 'Friend Ananda, what are the things
of whcih an arising is discerned,a vanishing is discerned, an
alteration of that which STANDS(thitassa annathattam) is discerned?
Being asked thus, how would you answer?"endquote [Ananda says the
five khandas are those things that have these qualities (of arising,
alteration while STANDING and dissolution). endquote The Buddha
applauds his answer.

Yes t khandhas exist, as we have that clearly
stated in the suttas also:
Samyutta Nikaya Khandavagga 94(2) Flowers Bodhi page 950
"Form (rupa) that is impermanet, suffering and subject to change;
this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say
that it exists. Feeing that is impermanent, suffering and subject to
change; this the wise in the world agree upon as existing and I too
say it EXISTS. Perception (sanna)that is impermanent, suffering and
subject to change; this the wise in the world agree upon as existing
and I too say it EXISTS. Sankhara that is impermanent, suffering and
subject to change; this the wise in the world agree upon as existing
and I too say it EXISTS. Vinnana (consciousness) that is
impermanent, suffering and subject to change; this the wise in the
world agree upon as existing and I too say it EXISTS.""endquote
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: What is the meanig of Paramattha?

Post by robertk »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Bakmoon,
Bakmoon wrote:When we say that a dhamma exists ultimately, we mean (in my understanding) that it is a part of direct experience rather than being a concept based on experience.

...

What we do not mean when we say that dhammas exist ultimately is that they have an essence or an existence that is not dependent on other things.
I have no problem personally with what is said here, but if you ask an Abhidhammika whether nama and rupa exist independently of being observed/experienced, I believe they would actually say yes.

The only "other things" that are recognised in this context as dependencies seem to be the past momentary dhammas that gave rise to the present momentary dhamma.

Metta,
Retro. :)
Thanks Retro
Yes indeed. They are sarupato- they exist "from their own side" - and are independent of any concepts about them.
So for example you might be looking at your computer and not your foot yet the rupas/rupakhandha/kalapas that make up what we conventionally call a foot are still arising and ceasing even without anyone 'experiencing' them.
Bakmoon
Posts: 637
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:14 pm

Re: What is the meaning of Paramattha?

Post by Bakmoon »

SarathW wrote:Thanks Bakmoon
How does Nibbana is fitting to your analysis?
Does Nibbana also realise within the range?
:thinking:
According to the Abhidhamma system of analysis, Nibbana is taken as a mind object during Lokuttarajhana, and so lies within range.
The non-doing of any evil,
The performance of what's skillful,
The cleansing of one's own mind:
This is the Buddhas' teaching.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: What is the meaning of Paramattha?

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Robert,
robertk wrote: Yes t khandhas exist, as we have that clearly
stated in the suttas also:
Samyutta Nikaya Khandavagga 94(2) Flowers Bodhi page 950
"Form (rupa) that is impermanet, suffering and subject to change;
this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say
that it exists. ..."
I would not take this to be a statement about existence in an objective sense, any more than the statements in SN 12.15 Kaccaayanagotto Sutta
The world, Kaccana, for the most part depends upon a duality - upon the notion of existence and the notion of non-existence.
Which most commentators (ancient and modern) seem to agree is about eternalism and annihilationism.

However, your use of such sutta examples is interesting, and suggests to me that interpretation of questions of objective existence are not a matter of Abdhidhamma, but a matter of opinion.
robertk wrote:
retrofuturist wrote: I have no problem personally with what is said here, but if you ask an Abhidhammika whether nama and rupa exist independently of being observed/experienced, I believe they would actually say yes.

The only "other things" that are recognised in this context as dependencies seem to be the past momentary dhammas that gave rise to the present momentary dhamma.
Thanks Retro
Yes indeed. They are sarupato- they exist "from their own side" - and are independent of any concepts about them.
So for example you might be looking at your computer and not your foot yet the rupas/rupakhandha/kalapas that make up what we conventionally call a foot are still arising and ceasing even without anyone 'experiencing' them.
I don't necessarily disagree with this. To me it is simply the "common sense approach" that most of us use in our daily lives.

However, I would be interested to know whether there a Canonical Abdhidhamma passage that addresses this point?

Failing that, is it possible to provide a quote from the Commentaries that we could examine?

And do you have any comments on the passages that Tilt gives in the link I gave above, which include references to several commentary passages, which suggest that the Theravada Abhidhamma avoids the position that dhammas are independent, separate, entities.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 80#p269377

:anjali:
Mike
Bakmoon
Posts: 637
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:14 pm

Re: What is the meaning of Paramattha?

Post by Bakmoon »

robertk wrote:Samyutta nikaya Khandhavagga (37(5)Ananda
P880 Bodhi translation
"the blessed one said to Ananda
"if Ananda they were to ask you 'Friend Ananda, what are the things
of whcih an arising is discerned,a vanishing is discerned, an
alteration of that which STANDS(thitassa annathattam) is discerned?
Being asked thus, how would you answer?"endquote [Ananda says the
five khandas are those things that have these qualities (of arising,
alteration while STANDING and dissolution). endquote The Buddha
applauds his answer.


This Sutta indicates that the Khandas arise, stand, and cease. I don't think that is an area of controversy between us.
robertk wrote: Yes t khandhas exist, as we have that clearly
stated in the suttas also:
Samyutta Nikaya Khandavagga 94(2) Flowers Bodhi page 950
"Form (rupa) that is impermanet, suffering and subject to change;
this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say
that it exists. Feeing that is impermanent, suffering and subject to
change; this the wise in the world agree upon as existing and I too
say it EXISTS. Perception (sanna)that is impermanent, suffering and
subject to change; this the wise in the world agree upon as existing
and I too say it EXISTS. Sankhara that is impermanent, suffering and
subject to change; this the wise in the world agree upon as existing
and I too say it EXISTS. Vinnana (consciousness) that is
impermanent, suffering and subject to change; this the wise in the
world agree upon as existing and I too say it EXISTS.""endquote
This sutta indicates that the khandas exist. That itself is not controversial. The question is what is the mode of their existence. Do the various Dhammas exist in the sense of having an ultimately existing substance behind their lakkhanas or do they not posses such a substance? I think that that the Atthasalini uses the term Sabhava not to refer to an ultimately existing substance, but as a general term for property, and that the Tika on the Atthasalini says that beyond this Sabhava there is no ultimately existing thing.
The non-doing of any evil,
The performance of what's skillful,
The cleansing of one's own mind:
This is the Buddhas' teaching.
Bakmoon
Posts: 637
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:14 pm

Re: What is the meanig of Paramattha?

Post by Bakmoon »

robertk wrote: Yes indeed. They are sarupato- they exist "from their own side" - and are independent of any concepts about them.
So for example you might be looking at your computer and not your foot yet the rupas/rupakhandha/kalapas that make up what we conventionally call a foot are still arising and ceasing even without anyone 'experiencing' them.
I've personally never found the kalapas as atoms model very convincing. Does the classical literature actually literally teach that the world of objects is made up out of kalapas like a form of atomism? Or do they leave the precise interpretation of what Kalapas are more open to interpretation? I'd much prefer to have direct quotes on this particular point.
The non-doing of any evil,
The performance of what's skillful,
The cleansing of one's own mind:
This is the Buddhas' teaching.
ponderingon
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2014 5:49 pm

Re: What is the meaning of Paramattha?

Post by ponderingon »

Question: When we taste a sour flavour and we notice that it is sour, do we experience already a concept?
S.: What is sour?
Q: For example, a sour orange.
S.: The flavour is a paramattha dhamma,............

S.: There is a concept, a notion that there are grapes, but in reality there is only flavour which arises and then falls away, or hardness which arises and then falls away.

When one does not realize the arising and falling away of one reality at a time one takes what appears to be a whole for a thing which exists.

Flavour and hardness are realities which appear and then on account of these realities there is a concept of grapes. The rupas which arise and then fall away are real but there are, in the absolute sense, no grapes, no beings, or people.
I really don'y understand why it is important to break down the things that are impermanent and try to recognize these impermanent things as concept or paramattha.

Can someone explain to me how is it important?

Because I thought the core of the teaching is that there is suffering and that all impermanent things are sufferings thus we break away from these impermanent things by the cessation of desire because that is the cause of sufferings.
desire these impermanent which leads to the endless rounds of rebirths.
The practice should be in accordance with the true characteristics of realities. We have, for example, learnt that paramattha dhammas are anatta (not-self), and thus we should try to understand the meaning of this, even on the theoretical level; we should consider it and develop panna so that we can realize the truth in accordance with what we have learnt before.
why?

because
If someone does not know as they are the characteristics of the realities which appear, and if he does not understand which cause leads to which effect, there will be wrong understanding. He will cling to wrong view, he will search for a way of practice which is the wrong Path. There will be ignorance while he sees different colours and perceives different things.
http://www.abhidhamma.org/sujin3.htm

For instance I do not know as they are the characteristics of the realities which appear, and do not understand which cause leads to which effect but I do have this view and that is All things are impermanent, and because they are impermanent I do not regard them as the self and that they only leads to much sufferings thus I practice the 8 fold paths the road to end sufferings.

I am comparing my point of view with paramattha dhamma to figure out if it is necessary to understand ultimate realities verses concept.
so the 2nd question is why go through the daily life trying to pin point whether these impermanent things are concept or ultimate reality?

why do I ask that?

In hoping someone able to show the significant of the teaching of the paramattha dhamma.
Post Reply