Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Ceisiwr,

I’ll quote Sylvester shortly where he convincingly shows, in my opinion, that this sutta also deals in qualities. In other words, it’s better translated as “solidity” rather than “solid”, although I think we could possibly make the same argument with “solid”. The question I will have to ask you is why would the empiricist Buddha suddenly adopt the Rationalist theory of noumena, which is but a stone’s throw away from Substance, with Substance itself being concerned with permanent hidden realities and so easily lends itself to various atta theories? Schopenhauer took Kant’s theory of noumena and turned it into a metaphysical “Will” which underlies reality. Interestingly Schopenhauer saw many parallels between noumena and his philosophy with what is in the Upanishads. Can you guess what noumena he was thinking of in the Upanishads? Brahman of course. The metaphysical reality that exists behind all phenomena. A noumenon. A thing in itself.

So, why would the Buddha suddenly switch his epistemology? I would propose that he didn’t. That the Buddha was a consistent thinker, and so never adopted Rationalist theories such as noumena or Substance. This is of course pertinent to our discussion, since the Abhidhamma and the commentaries systematically erase both Substance and Atta in even the smallest moment of conscious experience.

Per my earlier comment, the philosophical terms and distinctions are mostly irrelevant to me, so I'll get straight to the point as I see it.

What I would say about the mahabhuta is that they were the prevailing ontological view, prior to the Buddha. To me, the Buddha "did not quarrel with the world" on this point, and probably found it a useful counter-balance to arguments that he was teaching some form of solipsism. Even now in this Dhamma, adherents squabble, calling one another idealists, solipsists, naive realists, "mind only" etc. and such.

The mahabhuta do not really play a central role in the Buddha's discourses, namely because materiality is not a central consideration. Most importantly, it is virtually irrelevant to understanding paticcasamuppada, which is the key to sotapanna and the key to the Noble Eightfold Path.

Metta,
Paul.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings all,

I'm about to get dressed to get ready to spin some tunes at a local establishment, so I'm going to have to bow out of the conversation for at least 12-18 hours. Apologies if there's any questions that remain unanswered. By all means, please ask questions in my absence and I'll endeavour to address any questions asked in good faith when I return.

Until then, I just wanted to remind you of the preface for this topic, which explains why it exists...

This refutation is not intended as a gratuitous assault upon the Abhidhamma. Rather, it is an attempt to logically and factually demonstrate to those who evangelize the Abhidhamma, that there are indeed valid reasons for disagreeing with it, and that these reasons do not require a full and comprehensive reading of the entire Abhidhamma Pitaka and its associated commentaries.

Much of the discussion here is interesting and certainly not off-topic, but neither is it necessary connected with the reason for the arising of this topic either. Some lines of enquiry may be better suited to spin-off topics, as per Spiny's new Two Aspects Of Rupa?



Metta,
Paul.

[DooDoot]

Irrespective of the terminology this is what says in the sutta:
When an object (external) and subject (internal) come together Vinnana arises.

Abhidhamma Says:
When Pureoctud (great elements and Gocara Rupa) and eye (Pureoctud plus internal Rupa and lifefaculty) come together Bhavaconscioiusness (Citta) arise.

The suttas use the term "rupa" in at least two ways:

1. the four great elements

2. form seen with the eye

Your reply about form seen with the eye appears off-topic

[Ceisiwr]

...

So when you said noumena, you didn’t really mean noumena? I’m struggling then to see what your initial criticism, limited so far to what I’ve replied to at the moment, is?

[DooDoot]

If you understand my reply to #1 you will see the consciousness is dependently originated.

Your reply to #1 appeared off-topic, i.e., wrong

We all know that Abhidhamma asserts all these Rupa are impermanence.

wrong rupa

They all go through birth, continuation, and death.

The suttas appear to say "conceiving self" goes through birth, continuation, and death (rather than "rupa"), as follows:

“Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?

https://suttacentral.net/mn140/en/bodhi#sc38

[DooDoot]

It is like Nibbana or rebirth we have to accept this by faith.

The suttas say Nibbana is visible here & now.

Nibbāna
AN 3.55 — Bhikkhu Bodhi

‘Directly visible nibbāna, directly visible nibbāna.’ In what way is nibbāna directly visible, immediate ... and dejection. It is in this way that nibbāna is directly visible. “One full of hate, overcome by hatred ... dejection. It is in this way, too, that nibbāna is directly visible. SC brahmin, one experiences the remainderless

As for rebirth, those with divine eye see evil doers 'reborn' into hellish states.

[zerotime]

"Contemporary to the Lord Buddha there was some talented monks who had ability to explain dhamma which Lord Buddha preached as summary. Buddha named Maha Kaccana thera as foremost monk for explain brief dhamma facts in detail. Not only Kaccan thera there were many other monks who had this ability like Sariputta thera. Very important thing is Mathika which was seeds to abhidhamma pitaka, included in dhamma. In Mahagopalaka Sutta of Majjhima Nikaya says,

“idha Bhikkhave ye te āgatāgamā dhammadharā vinayadharā mātikādharā te kāle na kālam upasamkamitvā paripuccati paripañhati” [17]

dhammadhara means who expert in dhamma,
Vinayadhara means who expert in vinaya texts, and
Matikadhara means who expert in Matikas.

Scholars say matika mean brief dhamma concepts which come in pali texts. For example in Sāmagāma sutta of Majjhima nikaya briefly show four mind bases, four great effort, noble eight fold path as dhamma. In Sangiti sutta of Dīga nikāya also give detail for brief dhamma preach. Those brief dhamma facts are known as Matikas. If one could not able to understand Matikas then they ask from wise monks and nuns get clear idea about that. Those able to explain Matikas are known as matikadhara. In abhidhmma, core parts of the dhamma takes as Matika which mean topics or headlines, and analyze it very deeply and acutely.

Maha thera who had ability to explain and interpret well, they have analyzed Matikas. Then Matikas evaluated gradually and finally it could not include in sutta pitka because it was large. Then it consider as separate pitaka."
http://tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/ ... Abhidhamma

Matikas were the sources for the later Abhidhamma.

That summary is quite useful. Also all the entries written by Kogen Mizuno inside the Abhidhamma section of "Encyclopaedia of Buddhism", Malalasekara, G.P.. Probably still are one of the best explanations in this issue.

[DooDoot]

I am fighting with my sward

[DooDoot]

.... the Abhidhamma re-frames nama-rupa to mean "mentality" and "materiality" and treats them as things to be separated, rather than understanding them as inextricably entwined components of conditioned experience. This Abhidhammic bifurcation distorts and misrepresents the Sutta meanings, quoted above, and therefore inhibits rather than assists in cultivating the proper understanding of paticcasamuppada.

At least my reading of the Abhidhamma Vibhanga finds it does not even include rupa in paticcasamuppada, as follows:

2. The Section Derived from the Abstract Teaching

2.1. The Conditions Tetrad

PTS cs 243 With ignorance as condition there is a (volitional) process, with a (volitional) process as condition: consciousness, with consciousness as condition: mind, with mind as condition: the sixth sense sphere, with the sixth sense sphere as condition: contact, with contact as condition: feeling, with feeling as condition: craving, with craving as condition: attachment, with attachment as condition: continuation, with continuation as condition: birth, with birth as condition: ageing, death, and so there is an origination of this whole mass of suffering.

2. Abhidhammabhājanīya
2.1. Paccayacatukka
27.1
Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhāro, saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṁ, viññāṇapaccayā nāmaṁ, nāmapaccayā chaṭṭhāyatanaṁ, chaṭṭhāyatanapaccayā phasso, phassapaccayā vedanā, vedanāpaccayā taṇhā, taṇhāpaccayā upādānaṁ, upādānapaccayā bhavo, bhavapaccayā jāti, jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇaṁ.
27.2
Evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti

https://suttacentral.net/vb6/en/anandajoti#pts-cs243
https://suttacentral.net/vb6/pli/ms#27.1

[DooDoot]

... indeed there are - and you have already presented it yourself.

By stating "whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural principles", you are stating that such a Dhamma is one that does not arise, and does not pass away. Hence, the dhammas of SN 47.42 cannot possibly be referring to that application of the word dhamma, since SN 47.42 is describing the arising and passing away of dhammas. As you identify above, Dhamma Law and Principles do not arise or pass away due to their aforementioned invariance.

Metta,
Paul.

Greetings retrofuturist ,

Thank you for your eel-wriggling based answer avoiding SN 46.51.

[DooDoot]

Very much so, hence their usage, and my comment to Sarath above that the rūpa of nama-rupa is always rupasañña (phenomena) and not materiality (nounemena)

if the above is true, why is the word "and" found below:

"The four great elements, and form derived from them."
"Cattaro ca mahabhuta, cattunanca maha bhutanam upadayarupam."

OK. Reviewing your previous answer, you are saying the Noumenon can be both perceived and also existent yet non-perceived? Is this correct?

My understanding of the term rupa in the Sutta Pitaka is that much like its English counterpart, form, it can relate both to materiality (i.e. noumena) itself, and/or to the presentation of that materiality as derived via the senses (i.e. phenomena). This accords with the above sutta presented above about rupa incorporating both mahabhuta and its derivatives.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Ceisiwr,

I’m struggling then to see what your initial criticism, limited so far to what I’ve replied to at the moment, is?

In short;

- In Buddhavacana, materiality is not regarded as a dhamma
- In Abhidhamma, materiality is not only a dhamma, it is a paramattha (ultimate!) dhamma.

Back to the decks now.

Metta,
Paul.

[Ceisiwr]

Greetings Ceisiwr,

I’m struggling then to see what your initial criticism, limited so far to what I’ve replied to at the moment, is?

In short;

- In Buddhavacana, materiality is not regarded as a dhamma
- In Abhidhamma, materiality is not only a dhamma, it is a paramattha (ultimate!) dhamma.

Back to the decks now.

Metta,
Paul.

Of course the earth element, as in hardness, is an ultimate aspect of direct experience before any conceptual overlay. More on this later.

[DooDoot]

Of course the earth element, as in hardness, is an ultimate aspect of direct experience before any conceptual overlay. More on this later.

Rāhula, the interior earth element is said to be anything hard, solid, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This includes: head hair, body hair, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, undigested food, feces, or anything else hard, solid, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual.

https://suttacentral.net/mn62/en/sujato

[SarathW]

Of course the earth element, as in hardness, is an ultimate aspect of direct experience before any conceptual overlay. More on this later.

Rāhula, the interior earth element is said to be anything hard, solid, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This includes: head hair, body hair, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, undigested food, feces, or anything else hard, solid, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual.

https://suttacentral.net/mn62/en/sujato

Assume Rahula was blind.
How he will understand it?