Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

[Ceisiwr]

Y. Karunadasa on “derived rupa” in his book on the Abhidhamma (worth a read everyone).

[Spiny Norman]

I don't see why using the mahabhuta would open up atta theories, since most "stuff" consists of a combination of elements, eg the person consisting of 6 elements in MN140.

I think this has to do with elements appropriated as form. It is more easily illustrated through simple mathmatical reasoning:

10 = 5+5
10 = 4+6
10 = 7+3
.
.
.
etc ... ad-infinitum.

From the above, it is concluded/assumed that the whole is more than the mere sum of its parts, which is the basis of atta theories.

Yes, you can regard the 6 elements of the person as a self, in much the same way you can regard the 5 aggregates of a person as a self.
Alternatively you could assume a "soul" beneath the elements or aggregates.

Buddha rejected both possibilities.

[Bundokji]

I don't see why using the mahabhuta would open up atta theories, since most "stuff" consists of a combination of elements, eg the person consisting of 6 elements in MN140.

I think this has to do with elements appropriated as form. It is more easily illustrated through simple mathmatical reasoning:

10 = 5+5
10 = 4+6
10 = 7+3
.
.
.
etc ... ad-infinitum.

From the above, it is concluded/assumed that the whole is more than the mere sum of its parts, which is the basis of atta theories.

Yes, you can regard the 6 elements of the person as a self, in much the same way you can regard the 5 aggregates as a self.
Alternatively you could assume a "soul" beneath the elements or aggregates.

Whether its a soul or an essence, the ability to explain form through endless combination of elements seems integral to concluding a quality that cannot be explained through/transcends the elements. In the example i provided, this quality would be ten-ness (if this is even a word )

The logic goes: the uniqueness of this quality is independent, exists in itself and survives deconstruction/decay/change of the elements.

[atipattoh]

Y. Karunadasa on “derived rupa” in his book on the Abhidhamma (worth a read everyone).

I was contemplating to ask about this "upada-rupa" in pali section, that helps a lot.

[atipattoh]

B Bodhi's translation already has the flavour of what the text trying to say, but before rearrange his translation, i'm looking into it's counterpart Chinese translation.

The chinese has it "四大种".
The root ancient meaning of the word "种" is "种子”. Which means "seed".
But from my understanding, it is more of "种性" or "种质", which is basically means "classes of nature/characteristics".

I have mentioned that Taoism has scheme of 5, "5 行” as in "5 formation". If you use Google translate, it says "5 elements". But the Chinese does not have element for 行, it has; row, behavior and conduct. Perhaps the Chinese may also mean to say "四大种行".

It seems the western equates "bhūta" with "dhātu". Despite the nature of description of the important of what the wise is discern in their practice is the characteristics of Mahābhūtā, the Chinese Buddhist translate it as "种", is probably to alienate themselves from Taoism.

So, if I were to split B Bodhi's translation on "volition formation", leaving "volition" for "saṅkhāra", and place it in "Mahābhūtā"

Cattāri ca mahābhūtāni, catunnañca mahābhūtānaṁ upādāyarūpaṁ — idaṁ vuccatāvuso, rūpaṁ.

The four great formations and the materiality derivation of the four great formations—these are called materiality.

MN1
... an untaught ordinary person, who has no regard for noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who has no regard for true men and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, perceives earth as earth. (As in hair, nail, bone, mountain, tree...{exactly as in primary image portrays})
....
a bhikkhu who is in higher training, whose mind has not yet reached the goal, and who is still aspiring to the supreme security from bondage, directly knows earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, (as in solidity [cohesion, heat or cold, motion for others] {understood from the secondary image})...

[Spiny Norman]

B Bodhi's translation already has the flavour of what the text trying to say, but before rearrange his translation, i'm looking into it's counterpart Chinese translation.

The chinese has it "四大种".
The root ancient meaning of the word "种" is "种子”. Which means "seed".
But from my understanding, it is more of "种性" or "种质", which is basically means "classes of nature/characteristics".

I have mentioned that Taoism has scheme of 5, "5 行” as in "5 formation". If you use Google translate, it says "5 elements". But the Chinese does not have element for 行, it has; row, behavior and conduct. Perhaps the Chinese may also mean to say "四大种行".

It seems the western equates "bhūta" with "dhātu". Despite the nature of description of the important of what the wise is discern in their practice is the characteristics of Mahābhūtā, the Chinese Buddhist translate it as "种", is probably to alienate themselves from Taoism.

So, if I were to split B Bodhi's translation on "volition formation", leaving "volition" for "saṅkhāra", and place it in "Mahābhūtā"

Cattāri ca mahābhūtāni, catunnañca mahābhūtānaṁ upādāyarūpaṁ — idaṁ vuccatāvuso, rūpaṁ.

The four great formations and the materiality derivation of the four great formations—these are called materiality.

MN1
... an untaught ordinary person, who has no regard for noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who has no regard for true men and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, perceives earth as earth. (As in hair, nail, bone, mountain, tree...{exactly as in primary image portrays})
....
a bhikkhu who is in higher training, whose mind has not yet reached the goal, and who is still aspiring to the supreme security from bondage, directly knows earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, (as in solidity [cohesion, heat or cold, motion for others] {understood from the secondary image})...

That's an interesting take on MN1, but does the sutta text actually support your bracketed explanations?
From what I can see, it's the same mahabhuta all the way through MN1. And the same beings, gods, etc.
What changes in MN1 is that the experience of all these things ceases to be self-referential.

[Spiny Norman]

I think this has to do with elements appropriated as form. It is more easily illustrated through simple mathmatical reasoning:

10 = 5+5
10 = 4+6
10 = 7+3
.
.
.
etc ... ad-infinitum.

From the above, it is concluded/assumed that the whole is more than the mere sum of its parts, which is the basis of atta theories.

Yes, you can regard the 6 elements of the person as a self, in much the same way you can regard the 5 aggregates as a self.
Alternatively you could assume a "soul" beneath the elements or aggregates.

Whether its a soul or an essence, the ability to explain form through endless combination of elements seems integral to concluding a quality that cannot be explained through/transcends the elements. In the example i provided, this quality would be ten-ness (if this is even a word )

The logic goes: the uniqueness of this quality is independent, exists in itself and survives deconstruction/decay/change of the elements.

Yes, a "soul" would be immaterial, and not included in the mahabhuta. And unlike the four mental aggregates, it would be unchanging and independently existing.

[DooDoot]

Y. Karunadasa on “derived rupa” in his book on the Abhidhamma (worth a read everyone).

The above sounds wrong because all of the terms in the 2nd to 7th conditions in Dependent Origination are 'defilement-neutral'. In other words, a "clinging-form" cannot exist with neutral nama.

[atipattoh]

That's an interesting take on MN1, but does the sutta text actually support your bracketed explanations?
From what I can see, it's the same mahabhuta all the way through MN1. And the same beings, gods, etc.
What changes in MN1 is that the experience of all these things ceases to be self-referential.

SN14.31 Pubbesambodhasutta
Notice that the text switch to specifically mention "dhātu" that is not present in MN1.
That is because the uneducated ordinary person, can not see beyond metaphysical earth.

You have to place this sutra within the context of what a bhikkhu who is in higher training should be practicing; to recognize, know; understand (abhijānāti) the 4 elements of the Mahābhūtā.

As Mike mention earlier, it would be interesting that, a man would find gratification when
covering himself with dirt,

Or soaking himself in a pool of water that is drained from the shit pond;
Or dancing away in the forest fire;
Or backstroke flying within the tornado.

no to be offending, I'm just trying to be dramatic.

[Ceisiwr]

It’s worth noting that the elements (dhatu) in general aren’t physical “things” but are qualities of experience. For example, apart from the 4 elements there is the pleasure element or the element of exertion and so on. They aren’t talking about what stuff makes up things, but aspects of direct experience. Empiricism, not Rationalism.

[Bundokji]

Yes, a "soul" would be immaterial, and not included in the mahabhuta. And unlike the four mental aggregates, it would be unchanging and independently existing.

In SN 35.23, the Buddha taught:

“Mendicants, I will teach you the all. Listen …

And what is the all? It’s just the eye and sights, the ear and sounds, the nose and smells, the tongue and tastes, the body and touches, and the mind and thoughts. This is called the all.

Mendicants, suppose someone was to say: ‘I’ll reject this all and describe another all.’ They’d have no grounds for that, they’d be stumped by questions, and, in addition, they’d get frustrated. Why is that? Because they’re out of their element.”

The description of the all in this sutta can be said to be phenomenological. What is interesting is that the Buddha did not deny nor affirm elements outside this phenomenological all, but seems to emphasize people's inability to describe it because its out of their range/element.

The phenomenological model seems to include the body as experienced hence the emphasis on sensation, not as a form. Had the body been formed, describing another-more inclusive all would be easy, such in the case of a building where the form is located, or a nation, or planet earth ...etc. To take the body as form is to define and explain the range of experience through/in reference to the body.

The perplexity of describing another all is that it can always be reduced to experience within the six senses. What makes a building, nation, or planet a real event rather than imaginations? The ontological model would refer to the ability of the body to move and experience the world from different vantage points where any imaginations in constructing another all will be justified through first hand experience in the past. A blind man can mistake the ear of the elephant to be an elephant, but he can continue to touch the elephant until he is capable of knowing it accurately in all its parts. He will never be capable of seeing it all it once, but with reliance on memory and imagination (based on touching other parts in the past), he can form/construct an accurate description of the elephant (ud 6.4)

Back to the point you raised earlier on this thread: does all of this warrant describing the dhamma as phenomena? What problems this is supposed to solve? Why it is not guilty of what other sectarians do?

"In the same way, monks, the wanderers of other sects are blind & eyeless. They don't know what is beneficial and what is harmful. They don't know what is the Dhamma and what is non-Dhamma. Not knowing what is beneficial and what is harmful, not knowing what is Dhamma and what is non-Dhamma, they keep on arguing, quarreling, & disputing, wounding one another with weapons of the mouth, saying, 'The Dhamma is like this, it's not like that. The Dhamma's not like that, it's like this.'"

[Spiny Norman]

It’s worth noting that the elements (dhatu) in general aren’t physical “things” but are qualities of experience. For example, apart from the 4 elements there is the pleasure element or the element of exertion and so on. They aren’t talking about what stuff makes up things, but aspects of direct experience. Empiricism, not Rationalism.

Perhaps, but this doesn't mean that the mahabhuta are qualities of experience.
What we experience is form derived from the mahabhuta.

[Spiny Norman]

That's an interesting take on MN1, but does the sutta text actually support your bracketed explanations?
From what I can see, it's the same mahabhuta all the way through MN1. And the same beings, gods, etc.
What changes in MN1 is that the experience of all these things ceases to be self-referential.

SN14.31 Pubbesambodhasutta
Notice that the text switch to specifically mention "dhātu" that is not present in MN1.
That is because the uneducated ordinary person, can not see beyond metaphysical earth.

You have to place this sutra within the context of what a bhikkhu who is in higher training should be practicing; to recognize, know; understand (abhijānāti) the 4 elements of the Mahābhūtā.

As Mike mention earlier, it would be interesting that, a man would find gratification when
covering himself with dirt,

Or soaking himself in a pool of water that is drained from the shit pond;
Or dancing away in the forest fire;
Or backstroke flying within the tornado.

no to be offending, I'm just trying to be dramatic.

Sorry, but I still don't think MN1 supports your interpretation. Essentially MN1 is describing the shift in view which occurs with the cessation of self-view and "I am".

[Ceisiwr]

It’s worth noting that the elements (dhatu) in general aren’t physical “things” but are qualities of experience. For example, apart from the 4 elements there is the pleasure element or the element of exertion and so on. They aren’t talking about what stuff makes up things, but aspects of direct experience. Empiricism, not Rationalism.

Perhaps, but this doesn't mean that the mahabhuta are qualities of experience.
What we experience is form derived from the mahabhuta.

I see no reason why the 4 mahabhuta are treated in anyway different from all the other elements. As shown previously, the grammar indicates that they are qualities to be experienced as do other suttas (the wood pile). The wood pile is no more made out of earth, water, fire and air (does that even make sense?) than it is out of the beauty or ugly element. As I say, your interpretation is quite at odds with the Buddha’s own epistemology.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Bundokji,

In SN 35.23, the Buddha taught:

Mendicants, suppose someone was to say: ‘I’ll reject this all and describe another all.’ They’d have no grounds for that, they’d be stumped by questions, and, in addition, they’d get frustrated. Why is that? Because they’re out of their element.”

No. That's a reckless use of an English idiom to represent something that has nothing to do with elements in the Dhamma. A less misleading translation would be Thanissaro's "Because it lies beyond range". You mention "range" later so I assume you know this...

Metta,
Paul.