Moderator: Mahavihara moderator
Yet in the chapter on the 12 sensbases (Āyatanānani) it is stated that citta coincide with the mind-base, while cetasika coincide with the mental-object base (p.287). The mind-base and mental-object base are not the same, but this would mean that the statement about ekavatthuka is false...
lojong1 wrote:What I see so far that might cause confusion is that for one English 'base' there are two Pali words--vatthu in ch.II.1, and aayatana in ch.VII.36.
I'm still looking...
lojong1 wrote:Citta and cetasika are stationed respectively at the internal and external sides of the base-pair-sphere-aayatana-thingy,...
mikenz66 wrote:Hi lojong1,
I have no idea what this means. Can you please explain how you derive this statement from the Abhidhamma or the Abhidhammattha Sangaha texts?
mikenz66 wrote:I'm still having trouble figuring out the exact nature of the contradiction is that Wouter is concerned about. In the first page he references the point is that there are various cetasikas that arise and cease with a particular citta. I can't see how the second page contradicts that.
lojong1 wrote:Is there a way to get rid of [the translation's] point '(iv)' altogether? The noun 'vatthu' isn't there.
mikenz66 wrote:The first line talks about arising, ceasing, object, base, doesn't it?
lojong1 wrote:Although it may amount to practically the same thing, it [Pali] does not say[here explicitly] they share one base (vatthu).
lojong1 wrote:mikenz66 wrote:The first line talks about arising, ceasing, object, base, doesn't it?
"§ 1. Ekuppàda (one arising)–nirodhà([one]ceasing) ca ekàlambana (one object)-vatthukà (grounded in/sharing the nature of, as in dictionary 'vatthukaa--adj.') Cetoyuttà (associated with consciousness) dvipa~n~nàsa (52) dhammà cetasikà matà (p.p. of ma~n~nati = known as."
'Base' (the noun vatthu), is not there; the Pali itself is not separated into four characteristics of cetasika.
perhaps mind base and mental base refer to the same thing?wouter_doorn wrote:The mind-base and mental-object base are not the same, but this would mean that the statement about ekavatthuka is false...
I'm still looking...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests