Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by DooDoot »

asahi wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 12:38 pm I dont see how or what fault this sutta had
i am starting a new topic on it. :smile: :reading:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by chownah »

DooDoot wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:49 am
asahi wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:34 am It is about the causes for the origination and cessation of the phenomena upon which the four kinds of mindfulness meditation are grounded.
Satipatthana does not mean "foundations of mindfulness". Satipatthana means "establishing mindfulness".
Thanissaro bikkhu disagrees with you....he says
"As a compound term, satipatthana can be broken down in two ways, either as sati-patthana, foundation of mindfulness; or as sati-upatthana, establishing of mindfulness. Scholars debate as to which is the proper interpretation, but in practice both provide useful food for thought."
He says this in his introduction to the mahasatipatthana sutta....which he calls "The Great Frames of Reference".
chownah
p.s. also, thanissaro never translated any part of any sutta to read "nibbana exists"....to improperly quote the suttas is probably a case of slandering the suttas and by extension slandering the buddha....
chownah
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by DooDoot »

chownah wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 3:07 pm Thanissaro bikkhu disagrees with you....
Thanissaro is wrong and nonsensical. The very idea of a "foundation" of mindfulness is nonsense & illogical.
chownah wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 3:07 pmp.s. also, thanissaro never translated any part of any sutta to read "nibbana exists"....
The translation is irrelevant. The Pali says Nibbana "atthi": https://suttacentral.net/ud8.1/pli/ms#3.1
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
atipattoh
Posts: 445
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:28 am

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by atipattoh »

Greetings Paul
retrofuturist wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 10:59 pm
:thanks: for the reply.
I was reading the abhidhamma yesterday, constructing the content for posting, but appolgy, being a bit slow. It seems more interesting to read the text when there is challenging quest. But still take up hell lot of time. Every time I re-read my content, always try to add in. :)

The general meaning of the word Rūpa is material form. When we take only the word form, it is going to take the meaning of the that word in the dictionary.
1. the shape or configuration and structure of something (a particular way) as distinguished from its material
2. a body (as of a person) especially in its external appearance or as distinguished from the face.
In Abhidhamma, the choice is not between these two words, but Materiality.

Let see the modern day's usage of Materiality, one example is it’s usage in accounting principle. In accounting principle, there is, what is meant by Materiality Principle is concerning about the relevance of information, and the size and nature of transactions that report in the financial statements. The Materiality that is presented in the book can be “material” to an entity but not to the other. Furthermore, tomorrow’s information varies from today’s since business goes on and on, financial statement always has “as at (date)”.

In seems to me that, by translating Rūpa as form, and that form is “A particular way in which a thing exists or appears”, it is more prone to be argued as noumena, because it does not necessarily carry the fact that it is being observed. Although it is described in sutta that, it is subject to change, but the very meaning of the word “form” it self does not carry that notion. I take it that your point is; form is subject to change and that it is being observe and perceived, as the qualifier, then we see the same in abhidhamma.

In Compendium of Phenomena 2.2.3. Exposition of Form
What is that form which is the sphere of vision?

The eye, that is to say the sentient organ, derived from the Great Phenomena, included in the self-state, nature of the self, invisible and reacting—by which eye, invisible and reacting, one has seen, sees, will, or may see form that is visible and impingeing
This that is sight,
The sphere of sight,
The element of vision,
The faculty of vision,

This that is:
“the world”, “a door”, “an ocean”, “lucent”, “a field”, “a basis”, “a guide”, “guidance”, The “hither shore”, An “empty village”
—this is that form which constitutes the sphere of vision.
Exposition of Form under Single Concepts
All form is that which is

Cognizable by the six modes of cognition,
Impermanent,
Subject to decay.

Such is the category of Form considered by way of single attributes.
The context of the term Materiality carry is pretty clear; Mahābhūtā, material form on the above and especially the characteristics of Mahābhūtā below, just don't seem to be noumena.
What is that form which is
(i.) Earth-element (paṭhavī-dhātu)?
That which is
Hard, Rough, Hardness, Rigidity,
MN9
The four great elements and the material form derived from the four great elements—these are called materiality.
How is abhidhamma violated this core teaching in the sutta MN9? I don’t see it.

Let see the alternative translation.
The four primary elements, and form derived from the four primary elements—this is called form.
I’m trying to see the logic of this new translation.
Cattāri ca (X) mahābhūtāni, catunnañca mahābhūtānaṁ upādāyarūpaṁ (Y)— idaṁ vuccatāvuso, (Z) rūpaṁ.
X & Y are Z, Y = Z, that makes X=Y, but we have a problem, the text specifically says Y is derived from X. They are not equally the same on surface quality.
The text says “this is called”, not “Both of these are classified as”.

This is bad.
These basic materials of steel, sand, cement, wood; and the building that is built from those basic material – this is called building.
Remember that form’s definition of 1&2; both fit into Y, I don’t see a form definition that fit into X. Considering the statement above, by doing so, I can rightfully say that; (X is called Z, by taking away Y) “These basic material of steel, sand, cement, wood- these are called Building”. This, suppose to be acceptable, but it is not.

‘And’ and ‘is built from' deny such categorised statement. Especially with the limitation of the definition of form, and ‘derived from' does not allow that. Something is strange with Z.

Apart from that, is Mahābhūtā elements means material as in particle? From the original post, I get the impression that your take on Materiality, to mean material particle? Though your rūpasañña description did take into internal, but dependent on external. The only problem that I see is limitation of general form definition.
MN1 Mūlapariyāyasutta
The Ordinary Person
“Here, bhikkhus, 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. Having perceived earth as earth, he conceives himself as earth, he conceives himself in earth, he conceives himself apart from earth, he conceives earth to be ‘mine,’ he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.
For one that assume materiality means material sense that is of physical material, then the understanding will be the same as "unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, perceives earth as earth'. In Asian country, especially Chinese do have slight advantage, easier to comprehend 4 elements, as we have another scheme of 5 in Taoism, so easier for us to understand that the 4 Mahābhūtā exist only by the lables, a name. "perceives earth as earth" is materializing earth lable into material particle. "Having directly known earth as earth" as in its characteristic is the subject of the higher training.

Is this earth in MN1, literal earth? I don’t think so. I believe you are not too. That's the reason that you says form is a better translation word for Rūpa, to avoid reader taking earth element as a thing. But the 'form' underlying definition of "A particular way in which a thing exists or appears” is more risky.

The abhidhamma has it similar to MN28
3.1. Analysis According to the Discourses
Six elements are: The element of extension (pathavīdhātu), element of (āpodhātu), element of heat (tejodhātu), element of motion (vāyodhātu), ….
Therein what is the element of extension? The element of extension is twofold: (It) Is internal; (it) is external. Therein what is internal element of extension? That which is personal, self-referable, hard, harsh, hardness, being hard (kakkhaḷaṁ kharigataṁ kakkhaḷattaṁ kakkhaḷabhāvo), internal, grasped (by craving and false view). For example: head hair, body hair, nails, teeth, skin; flesh, sinews, bone, bone-marrow, kidneys; heart, liver, membraneous tissue, spleen, lungs; intestines, mesentery, undigested food, excrement; or whatever else there is, personal, self-referable, hard, harsh, hardness, being hard, internal, grasped. This is called internal element of extension.

Therein what is external element of extension? That which is external, hard, harsh, hardness, being hard external, not grasped. For example; iron, copper, tin, lead, silver, pearl, gem, cat’s-eye, shell, stone, coral, silver coin, gold, ruby, variegated precious stone, grass, wood, gravel, potsherd, earth, rock, mountain; or whatever else there is, external, hard, harsh, hardness, being hard, external, not grasped. This is called external element of extension. That which is internal element of extension and that which is external element of extension; (taking) these together collectively and briefly, this is called the element of extension.
The core common ground between the X & Y is the characteristics of the Mahābhūtā, which is the missing piece of precise description of Z.
MN28
(X) And what are the four primary elements? The elements of earth, water, fire, and air.
And what is the earth element? The earth element may be interior or exterior. And what is the interior earth element?
(Z) Anything hard, solid (kakkhaḷaṁ kharigataṁ), and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual.
(Y) 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. This is called the interior earth element.
Is those bhikkhu that interpret rūpa as Materiality, can be so ignorant that they means earth as literal earth? No. Anyone would have use the term material/metal/particle if he wish to refer to literal earth in material/metal/particle. The earth here refer to the nature of those particular elements, as in “hard, solid kakkhaḷaṁ kharigataṁ” and the rest of the characteristics of
“ water, watery - āpo āpogataṁ;
fire, fiery - tejo tejogataṁ;
air, airy - vāyo vāyogataṁ”.

How is ‘form’, with it’s English definition, going to cover these non-literal earth that is pointing to it’s characteristics?
Y & Z takes on the same Pali word, it can only be possible if they are pointing to a common ground, the characteristics of Mahābhūtā, and the best word of choice is B Bodhi’s translation, Materiality; it allow for ‘material form’ for Y.
To sum that up, materiality does not means material, the Mahābhūtā-rūpa of the 4 dhammas, is to be experience as such:
1. 'Element of Earth' or solidity (to be perceived and experienced as hardness or softness)
2. 'Element of Water' or cohesion (to be perceived and experienced as watery)
3. 'Element of Fire' or temperature (to be perceived and experienced as heat or cold)
4. 'Element of Wind' or motion (to be perceived and experienced as motion or pressure)
What is to be perceived and experienced, is phenomena, I don’t see that abhidhamma posit it as noumena.

To translate Z as ‘form’, it leaves out the mechanism of the process. The word Form is sufficient to explain process, but it leaves rūpasañña being mystical.

DD has pointed out in abhidhamma, there is only nama and not the standard namarupa in paticcasamuppada. If you notice, it is not six, but ‘the sixth’ on next link. This is when
"rūpasaññānaṁ samatikkamā".

So abhidhamma is dealing especially on the higher teaching. These nama only paticcasamuppada, is the strawberry that is removed from the pudding, which leaves a cavity on it. I don’t remember seeing this structure in sutta.

In Rupa Jhana-1; when 5 kāmaguṇā not present, 5 sense sphere is not present.
Without 5 sense spheres, then what is perceived and experience is only purely internal mind object, yet there is rūpasañña. This object also, is not noumena, it changes dependent on perception. If fact, it changes because it is being perceived. It is subject to changes, dependent on perceiver’s mind. When the mind is stilled, it remains the same. Not because by it self, noumena, does not change or changes, whether or not it is being perceived. Because the mind is stable, stays on the same perception, similar image of mind produce repetitively, appears to stays unchanging. But it changes every moment, if not, then how can one explained the changing part before it is stable?

From the example on rūpasañña that you described, this is not possible as it require external object. But abhidhamma emphasize on the materiality-the characteristics of the Mahābhūtā, those mind object experience can then be explained.

In the Exposition of Form under Single Concepts
• Cognizable by the six modes of cognition
• Impermanent
• Subject to decay
Related to the universe of sense,
• Not related to the universe of form


These statements does not looks noumena to me, whether only the sixth or plus the five spheres as well. The 4 Mahābhūtā exist only by the lables, a name.

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

C) Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhāro, saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṁ, viññāṇapaccayā nāmaṁ, nāmapaccayā phasso, phassapaccayā vedanā, vedanāpaccayā taṇhā, taṇhāpaccayā upādānaṁ, upādānapaccayā bhavo, bhavapaccayā jāti, jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇaṁ. Evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti.

B) Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhāro, saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṁ, viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṁ, nāmarūpapaccayā chaṭṭhāyatanaṁ, chaṭṭhāyatanapaccayā phasso, phassapaccayā vedanā, vedanāpaccayā taṇhā, taṇhāpaccayā upādānaṁ, upādānapaccayā bhavo, bhavapaccayā jāti, jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇaṁ. Evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti.

A) Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhāro, saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṁ, viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṁ, nāmarūpapaccayā saḷāyatanaṁ, chaṭṭhāyatanapaccayā phasso, phassapaccayā vedanā, vedanāpaccayā taṇhā, taṇhāpaccayā upādānaṁ, upādānapaccayā bhavo, bhavapaccayā jāti, jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇaṁ. Evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti.
'A' is pretty common, 'B' is a bit special.
to explain 'B', i will use the example of a post i wrote once.
The observation from the practice was flashes of “aurora” on the surface, then secondary image was pulled out from the object, “floating“. When the “balance” is achieved, a glass “sign” appear in between the object image and secondary image. The best part of the secondary image is, being more “direct” in nature; from a small spot multiply in homogenious and perfected to cover whole “page” including original imperfect painted area. This characteristic of “homogenization” tells us one thing that there is some kind of “manipulation” occurs in the mind, perhaps that is what the mind does in storing image. The manipulation is enhance further with inclusion of perception of distance, that occurs when the stable “glass sign” is formed.
The primary image that represent the observed object is link 3 to link 5 of 'A'.
The secondary image can not be said to be primary, because it is different, can be altered by the mind. It can be differentiated, it falls under the link 3 to 5 of 'B', a more refined paticcasamuppada.

The fact that there is "rūpasaññānaṁ samatikkamā" is demonstrated in 'C' and all those text in abhidhamma, i just don't see how it is possible that 'Materiality' can be classified as noumena.

The definition of paramattha dhammas for Materiality; i would say such claim is made in the sense that, the exposition of Materiality leads to the understanding in 'B', 'C' and 'D' of the higher teaching, hence paramattha.

I regards Mahābhūtā as just a lable, name; so i don't have problem for name being translation of nama. I would say that my choice of word is Name-Materiality.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by mikenz66 »

atipattoh wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:32 am I was reading the abhidhamma yesterday, constructing the content for posting, but appolgy, being a bit slow. It seems more interesting to read the text when there is challenging quest. But still take up hell lot of time. Every time I re-read my content, always try to add in. :)
Thanks for the extremely useful analysis! I hope that any answer will be as well thought-out and detailed.

:heart:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings atipattoh,
atipattoh wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:32 am MN9
The four great elements and the material form derived from the four great elements—these are called materiality.
How is abhidhamma violated this core teaching in the sutta MN9? I don’t see it.
Moreover, the inclusion of the word "material" is Bhikkhu Bodhi retrofitting the commentarial Abhidhamma understanding back into the Suttas. Fine if you like that sort of thing, not if you don't. Either way, the word "material" isn't there in the Pali, so let move on to...
atipattoh wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:32 amLet see the alternative translation.
The four primary elements, and form derived from the four primary elements—this is called form.
I’m trying to see the logic of this new translation.
It is as explained above... by taking the Pali at face value without retrofitting sectarian interpretation into the Sutta via means of translation.

As I said earlier to DooDoot, rupa is like the English word "form" in terms of its ability to refer to materiality (noumena) or its presentation (phenomena). The term mahabhuta excludes the presentation/phenomenal aspect, whereas the term rupasañña excludes the material/noumenic aspect. Nama-rupa similarly excludes the material/noumenic aspect by virtue of its inherent inextricablility from the constituents of nama and its dependence upon avijja.

Or, as it's worded in the Suttas (with brackets and quotation marks by Retrofuturist)..
SN 12.2 wrote:Feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention: this is called name. The four "great elements" (mahabhuta) and "the form derived from" the four great elements" (rupasañña): this is called form. Thus this name and this form are together called name-and-form.
Thank you for your comprehensive, well considered post.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"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."
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings atipattoh,
atipattoh wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:32 amThe abhidhamma has it similar to MN28
3.1. Analysis According to the Discourses
Six elements are: The element of extension (pathavīdhātu), element of (āpodhātu), element of heat (tejodhātu), element of motion (vāyodhātu), ….
Therein what is the element of extension?
This is yet another example of a doctrinal conclusion shaping the translation. The Pali of the Suttas, when unmolested in such a manner speaks instead of earth, air, fire and water elements. This extension, heat, motion etc. business is the way by which the mahadhatu are known. However, saying that earth, air, fire and water actually mean those things and are actually are those things, is an attempt to phenomenalize the one set of things outlined in the Suttas that actually aren't phenomena (hence materiality/mahabhuta not being referred to as dhammas in the Sutta). This of course limits the extent to which I can accept your conclusions that follow. Nonetheless...
atipattoh wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:32 am To sum that up, materiality does not means material, the Mahābhūtā-rūpa of the 4 dhammas, is to be experience as such:
1. 'Element of Earth' or solidity (to be perceived and experienced as hardness or softness)
2. 'Element of Water' or cohesion (to be perceived and experienced as watery)
3. 'Element of Fire' or temperature (to be perceived and experienced as heat or cold)
4. 'Element of Wind' or motion (to be perceived and experienced as motion or pressure)
What is to be perceived and experienced, is phenomena, I don’t see that abhidhamma posit it as noumena.
Earth is noumena, whereas "perceived and experienced as hardness or softness" is phenomena.
(And repeated for the other three mahabhuta)
atipattoh wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:32 amThe word Form is sufficient to explain process, but it leaves rūpasañña being mystical.
There's nothing "mystical" about it so I see no purpose in referring to it in such a way. The usage of the term is explained in the post above. I could quote more from other teachers on the use of the term, but I'm trying to avoid doing so lest the mention of certain names elicit poor responses from others.
atipattoh wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:32 am In the Exposition of Form under Single Concepts
• Cognizable by the six modes of cognition
• Impermanent
• Subject to decay
Related to the universe of sense,
• Not related to the universe of form
Interesting, but without knowing what the qualifier "under Single Concepts" entails it's hard to give this any categoric meaning.

Once more, thank you for the consideration and open dialogue.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"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."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by mikenz66 »

This raises and interesting point:
retrofuturist wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:26 am This is yet another example of a doctrinal conclusion shaping the translation. The Pali of the Suttas, when unmolested in such a manner speak instead of earth, air, fire and water elements. This extension, heat, motion etc. business is the way by which the mahadhatu are known. However, saying that earth, air, fire and water actually mean those things and are actually are those things, is an attempt to phenomenalize the one set of things outlined in the Suttas that actually aren't phenomena (hence materiality/mahabhuta not being referred to as dhammas in the Sutta). This of course limits the extent to which I can accept your conclusions that follow. Nonetheless...
However, I don't see where the mahadhatu are defined in the suttas, so I wonder how we can actually know what is meant without looking at contemporaryish records (such as the commentaries). Perhaps you could explain your reasoning.

The sort of thing we have (e.g. MN48) is:
And what is the grasping aggregate of form?
Katamo cāvuso, rūpupādānakkhandho?
The four primary elements, and form derived from the four primary elements.
Cattāri ca mahābhūtāni, catunnañca mahābhūtānaṁ upādāya rūpaṁ.

And what are the four primary elements?
Katamā cāvuso, cattāro mahābhūtā?
The elements of earth, water, fire, and air.
Pathavīdhātu, āpodhātu, tejodhātu, vāyodhātu.

And what is the earth element?
Katamā cāvuso, pathavīdhātu?
The earth element may be interior or exterior.
Pathavīdhātu siyā ajjhattikā, siyā bāhirā.
And what is the interior earth element?
Katamā cāvuso, ajjhattikā pathavīdhātu?
Anything hard, solid, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This includes:
Yaṁ ajjhattaṁ paccattaṁ kakkhaḷaṁ kharigataṁ upādinnaṁ, seyyathidaṁ—
...
https://suttacentral.net/mn28/en/sujato
:heart:
Mike
Srilankaputra
Posts: 1210
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:56 am
Location: Sri Lanka

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by Srilankaputra »

retrofuturist wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 2:03 am Common Abhidhamma Argument #1 - Mentality and materiality are paramattha dhammas (i.e. ultimate dhammas)

Sutta Reponse: Never in the Suttas are materiality referred to as "dhammas". Dhammas are phenomena, whereas materiality is noumena. Instead, materiality is represented in the Sutta via mahabhuta (great elements). As for mentality, that will be addressed below.
Getting this back to pali, are you saying that in the Suttas,

'rupa' stands for 'phenemona'

And

'Mahabhuta' stands for 'noumena' ?

Wish you all success in all your endeavours. Goodbye!
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 8:16 am However, I don't see where the mahadhatu are defined in the suttas, so I wonder how we can actually know what is meant without looking at contemporaryish records (such as the commentaries). Perhaps you could explain your reasoning.
My reasoning is that:

- When someone means earth they say earth
- When someone means fire they say fire
- When someone means water they say water
- When someone means air they say air
- When someone wants to transform the straightforward or conventional meaning into something else, they need to define it (i.e. the Buddha did this for terms like kamma, loka etc.)
- Obvious things not being defined means they are not in need of such (re)definition

Your "wonder"-ing about the meaning of something clear and obvious, not being able to be understood unless it is re-interpreted by someone who lived one millennium after the Buddha is symptomatic of Theravada's malaise and the extent to which it has become beholden to Buddhaghosa.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"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."
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Srilankaputra,
Srilankaputra wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 8:29 am
retrofuturist wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 2:03 am Common Abhidhamma Argument #1 - Mentality and materiality are paramattha dhammas (i.e. ultimate dhammas)

Sutta Reponse: Never in the Suttas are materiality referred to as "dhammas". Dhammas are phenomena, whereas materiality is noumena. Instead, materiality is represented in the Sutta via mahabhuta (great elements). As for mentality, that will be addressed below.
Getting this back to pali, are you saying that in the Suttas,

'rupa' stands for 'phenemona'

And

'Mahabhuta' stands for 'noumena' ?
Not quite. See here.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"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."
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by Spiny Norman »

retrofuturist wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 8:55 am Greetings Srilankaputra,
Srilankaputra wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 8:29 am
retrofuturist wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 2:03 am Common Abhidhamma Argument #1 - Mentality and materiality are paramattha dhammas (i.e. ultimate dhammas)

Sutta Reponse: Never in the Suttas are materiality referred to as "dhammas". Dhammas are phenomena, whereas materiality is noumena. Instead, materiality is represented in the Sutta via mahabhuta (great elements). As for mentality, that will be addressed below.
Getting this back to pali, are you saying that in the Suttas,

'rupa' stands for 'phenemona'

And

'Mahabhuta' stands for 'noumena' ?
Not quite. See here.

Metta,
Paul. :)
A couple of problems with your interpretation:
1. There is no reference to "rupasanna" in the stock description of rupa. Sanna belongs in the nama aspect of nama-rupa, not the rupa aspect.
2. The stock description of rupa is used in nama-rupa, which incudes the four great elements. So using your terminology, both noumena and phenomena are included in nama-rupa. So arguing that rupa is only phenomenal in nama-rupa is a stretch.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 8:43 am Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 8:16 am However, I don't see where the mahadhatu are defined in the suttas, so I wonder how we can actually know what is meant without looking at contemporaryish records (such as the commentaries). Perhaps you could explain your reasoning.
My reasoning is that:

- When someone means earth they say earth
- When someone means fire they say fire
- When someone means water they say water
- When someone means air they say air
- When someone wants to transform the straightforward meaning into something else, they need to define it
- Obvious things not being defined means they are not in need of such definition

Your "wonder"-ing about the meaning of something clear and obvious, not being able to be understood unless it is re-interpreted by someone who lived one millennium after the Buddha is symptomatic of Theravada's malaise and the extent to which it has become beholden to Buddhaghosa.

Metta,
Paul. :)
OK, so when the suttas say "earth" they mean dirt?
When they say "water", they mean the stuff in the ocean?
When they say "fire", they mean this?
Image
And when they say "air", they mean a cool breeze?

And rūpa is those four mahābhūtā, and rūpa "derived" from those?

It's not very obvious to me how to take those as "things" (noumena) when reading the sutta descriptions: https://suttacentral.net/mn28/en/sujato
And what is the fire element?
The fire element may be interior or exterior.
And what is the interior fire element?
Anything that’s fire, fiery, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This includes:
that which warms, that which ages, that which heats you up when feverish, that which properly digests food and drink, or anything else that’s fire, fiery, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual.
...
and
And what is the air element?
The air element may be interior or exterior.
And what is the interior air element?
Anything that’s wind, windy, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This includes:
winds that go up or down, winds in the belly or the bowels, winds that flow through the limbs, in-breaths and out-breaths, or anything else that’s wind, windy, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual.
...
:heart:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Spiny,
Spiny Norman wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 9:15 am A couple of problems with your interpretation:
1. There is no reference to "rupasanna" in the stock description of rupa. Sanna belongs in the nama aspect of nama-rupa, not the rupa aspect.
Correct, there is no reference to it, nor am I saying that such explicit reference is there. What I am saying is that it is synonymous or equivalent to the stock phrase "the form derived from", because this form is derived via the factors of nama... feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention.
Spiny Norman wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 9:15 am 2. The stock description of rupa is used in nama-rupa, which incudes the four great elements. So using your terminology, both noumena and phenomena are included in nama-rupa. So arguing that rupa is only phenomenal in nama-rupa is a stretch.
This was addressed here. There is no standalone rupa, independent of nama, in paticcasamuppada.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"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."
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 9:20 am OK, so when the suttas say "earth" they mean dirt?
When they say "water", they mean the stuff in the ocean?
When they say "fire", they mean this?
They mean what they meant in the prevailing venacular of the mahabhuta schema. As I said to Ceisiwr earlier, the mahabhuta predates the Buddha, and as I said to you, unlike prevailing concepts such as kamma and loka, he had no need or want to redefine it.

What has been said here and prior addresses your subsequent comments.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"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."
Post Reply